in 




W 

Jl 

rl 










*A- ^ 



s 

v.. D ' 

.0 o 









<\V <p 






° « 



^» ^ 






8 I \ 






v> . 



v>^ 





















$ ^ 








THE 



ETYMOLOGY AND SYNTAX 



ENGLISH LANGUAGE 



EXPLAINED AND ILLUSTRATED. 



BY THE REV. ALEX. CROMBIE, 



LL.D. F.R.S. M.R.S.L. AND F.Z. 



SEVENTH EDITION. 



LONDON: 

SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO., 

STATIONEKS' HALL COURT. 



1853. 









LONDON : 
GEORGE WOODFALL AND SON, 

ANGEL COURT, SKINNER STREET. 



PREFACE 

TO THE SECOND EDITION. 



The success with which the principles of any art or science 
are investigated, is generally proportioned to the number of 
those, whose labours are directed to its cultivation and im- 
provement. Inquiry is necessarily the parent of knowledge; 
error itself, proceeding from discussion, leads ultimately to 
the establishment of truth. 

Were we to estimate our progress in the knowledge of 
English grammar from the number of works already pub- 
lished on the subject, we should perhaps be prompted to infer, 
that in afield so circumscribed, and at the same time so often 
and so ably explored, no object worthy of notice could have 
escaped attention. And yet in this, as in every other art or 
science, strict examination will convince us, that, though 
much may have been accomplished, still much remains, to 
stimulate the industry, and exercise the ingenuity, of future 
inquirers. The author indeed is fully persuaded, that it is 
impossible to examine the English language with any degree 
of critical accuracy, and not perceive, that its syntactical 
principles especially are yet but imperfectly illustrated, and 
that there are many of its idioms, which have entirely eluded 
the attention of our grammarians. That these defects are all 
supplied by the present work, the author is far from having 
the vanity to believe. That he has examined a few peculiar- 
ities, and elucidated some principles, which have escaped 
the observation of other grammarians, he trusts the intelli- 
gent reader will remark. 

The Treatise, the second edition of which now solicits the 
notice of the public, is intended chiefly for the improvement 

a 2 



IV PREFACE. 

of those, who have made some advancement in classic litera- 
ture. That an acquaintance with Greek and Latin facilitates 
the acquisition of every other language, and that by a know- 
ledge of these the classical scholar is therefore materially 
assisted in attaining a critical acquaintance with his native 
tongue, it would argue extreme perversity to deny. But 
that an extensive knowledge of Greek and Latin is often as- 
sociated with an imperfect and superficial acquaintance with 
the principles of the English language, is a fact, which ex- 
perience demonstrates, and it would not be difficult to ex- 
plain. To make any tolerable progress in a classical course, 
without acquiring a general knowledge of English grammar, 
is indeed impossible ; yet to finish that course, without any 
correct acquaintance with the mechanism of the English 
language, or any critical knowledge of its principles, is an 
occurrence neither singular nor surprising. No language 
whatever can be critically learned, but by careful study of 
its general structure, and peculiar principles. To assist the 
classical scholar in attaining a correct acquaintance with 
English grammar, is the chief, though not the sole, end for 
which the present Treatise was composed. That it is, in 
some degree, calculated to answer this purpose, the author, 
from its reception, is willing to believe. 

His obligations to his predecessors in the same depart- 
ment of literature, he feels it his duty to acknowledge. He 
trusts, at the same time, that the intelligent reader will per- 
ceive, that he has neither copied with servility nor implicitly 
adopted the opinions of others ; but has, in every question, 
exercised his own judgment, in observance of that respect, 
which all men owe to truth, and consistently, he hopes, with 
that deference, which is confessedly due to transcendent 
talents. 

The Treatise, he believes, contains some original observ- 
ations. That all of these deserve to be honoured with a 
favourable verdict in the court of Criticism, he has neither 
the presumption to insinuate, nor the vanity to suppose. If 
they be found subservient to the elucidation of any contro- 
verted point, be the ultimate decision what it may, the author 
will attain his aim. 



PREFACE V 

The work having been composed amidst the solicitudes 
and distractions of a laborious profession, the author has 
reason to apprehend, that some verbal inaccuracies may have 
escaped his attention. But, in whatever other respects the 
diction may be faulty, he trusts at least, that it is not charge- 
able with obscurity ; and that he may be able to say, in the 
humble language of the poet, 

" Ergo, fungar vice cotis, acutum 

Reddere quae ferrum valet, exsors ipsa secandi." 

Hor. Art. Poet. 

Greenwich. 



. 



PREFACE 

TO THE THIRD EDITION. 



The following work, which has been for some time out of 
print, having been favoured with the gratifying approbation 
of the Rev. Professor Dale, and selected by that learned and 
worthy preceptor, as one of the text books for the class of 
English literature in the University of London, a new edition 
has become necessary. The author's time and attention 
having been recently devoted to another publication, which 
was not completed until it became indispensable that this 
volume should be sent to press, the only additions here in- 
troduced are such as occurred to the author while the work 
was proceeding through the hands of the printer. They 
will be found, however, to be in number not inconsiderable ; 
and it is hoped, that in quality they will be thought not un- 
worthy of the student's attention. They consist chiefly of 
examples of solecism and impropriety, accompanied with 
such critical remarks as these errors have suggested, and 
such illustrations as they seemed to require. This mode of 
enlargement the author has preferred, persuaded of the truth 
of Dr. Lowth's observation, that one of the most successful 
methods of conveying instruction is, " to teach what is right, 
by showing what is wrong." 

York Terrace, Regent's Park. 



CONTENTS. 

INTRODUCTION. 

PAGE 

Of Language in general, and the English Alphabet . . 1 

PART I. 

Of Etymology 12 

CHAPTER I. 
Of the Noun 7 16 

CHAPTER II. 
Of the Article 38 

CHAPTER III. 
Of the Pronoun 50 

CHAPTER IV. 
Of the Adjective . . 64 

CHAPTER V. 
Of the Verb 77 

CHAPTER VI. 
Of the Participle 102 

CHAPTER VII. 
Of Adverbs 142 



Vlll 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

PAGE 

Of Prepositions ....... .145 

CHAPTER IX. 
Of Conjunctions 153 

CHAPTER X. 
Of Interjections 160 



PART II. 



Of Syntax . 



161 



PART III. 



CHAPTER I. 

Canons of Ceiticism 224 



CHAPTER II. 



Critical Remarks and Illustrations 
Sect. I. — The Noun 
Sect. II. — The Adjective 
Sect. III. — The Pronoun 
Sect. IV.— The Verb . 
Sect. V.— The Adverb 
Sect. VI. — The Preposition 
Sect. VII. — The Conjunction 



236 
244 
254 
264 
284 
290 
293 



ETYMOLOGY AND SYNTAX 



THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 



INTRODUCTION. 

Language consists of intelligible signs, and is the medium 
by which the mind communicates its thoughts. It is either 
articulate or inarticulate ; artificial or natural. The former 
is peculiar to man ; the latter is common to all animals. By 
inarticulate language, we mean those instinctive sounds, or 
cries, by which the several tribes of inferior creatures are 
enabled to express their sensations and desires. By articu- 
late language is understood a system of expression, composed 
of simple sounds, differently modified by the organs of speech, 
and variously combined. 

Man, like every other animal, has a natural language in- 
telligible to all of his own species. This language, however, 
is extremely defective, being confined entirely to the general 
expression of joy, grief, fear, and the other passions or emo- 
tions of the mind ; it is, therefore, wholly inadequate to the 
purposes of rational intercourse, and the infinitely-diversified 
ideas of an intelligent being. Hence arises the necessity of 
an artificial or articulate language ; a necessity coeval with 
the existence of man in his rudest state, increasing also with 
the enlargement of his ideas, and the improvement of his 
mind. Man, therefore, was formed capable of speech. Na- 
ture has furnished him with the necessary organs, and with 
ingenuity to render them subservient to his purposes. And 

B 



INTRODUCTION. 



though at first his vocabulary was doubtless scanty, as his 
wants were simple, and his exigencies few, his language and 
his intellect would naturally keep pace. As the latter im- 
proved, the former would be enlarged. 

Oral language, we have reason to suppose, continued long 
to be the only medium by which knowledge could be im- 
parted, or social intercourse maintained. But, in the pro- 
gress of science, various methods were devised for attaining a 
more permanent and more extensive vehicle of thought. Of 
these, the earliest were, as some think, picture-writing and 
hieroglyphics. Visible objects and external events were de- 
lineated by pictures, while immaterial things were emblem- 
atically expressed by figures representative of such physical 
objects as bore some conceived analogy or resemblance to 
the thing to be expressed. These figures or devices were 
termed hieroglyphics a . It is obvious, however, that this 
medium of communication must not only have embarrassed 
by its obscurity, but must have also been extremely deficient 
in variety of expression. 

At length oral language, by an effort of ingenuity which 
must ever command admiration, was resolved into its simple 

a Beattie seems to think that the antediluvians had an alphabet, and 
that hieroglyphical was posterior to alphabetical writing. " The wisdom 
and simple manners of the first men," says he, " would incline me to 
think, that they must have had an alphabet ; for hieroglyphic characters 
imply quaintness and witticism." In this reasoning I cannot concur. 
Alphabetic writing is indeed simple, when known ; so also are most 
inventions. But, simple and easy as it appears to us, we have only to 
examine the art itself, to be fully convinced, that science, genius, and 
industry, must have been combined in inventing it. Nay, the learned 
author himself acknowledges, "that though of easy acquisition to us, it is 
in itself neither easy nor obvious." He even admits, "that alphabetical 
writing must be so remote from the conceptions of those who never heard 
of it, that without divine aid it would seem to be unsearchable and im- 
possible." I observe also that in passing from picture-writing to hiero- 
glyphical expression, and in transferring the signs of physical to intellectual 
and invisible objects, fanciful conceits would naturally take place. It is 
true also that the manners of the antediluvians were simple ; but it is 
not from prudence nor simplicity of manners, but from human genius, 
gradually improved, that we are to expect inventions, which require the 
greatest efforts of the human mind. 



INTRODUCTION. 3 

or elementary sounds, and these were characterized by ap- 
propriate symbols a . Words, the signs of thought, came 
thus to be represented by letters, or characters arbitrarily 
formed, to signify the different sounds of which the words 
were severally composed. The simplest elementary part of 
written language is, therefore, a letter : and the elements or 
letters into which the words of any language may be analyzed, 
form the necessary alphabet of that language. 
In the English alphabet are twenty-six letters. 

ABCDEFGHIJKLMN.OPQRSTUVWXYZ. 

abcdefghijklmnopqr stuvwxyz. 

Of these there are six vowels, or letters which by themselves 
make every one a perfect sound. The remaining twenty are 
called consonants, or letters which cannot be sounded without 
a vowel. 

This alphabet is both redundant and defective. It is re- 
dundant ; for of the vowels, the letters i and y are in sound 
the same : one of them therefore is unnecessary. Of the con- 

a Cicero regards the invention of alphabetic writing as an evidence of 
the celestial character of the soul ; and many have ascribed its origin to 
the inspiration of the Deity. To resort to supernatural causes, to account 
for the production of any rare or striking event, is repugnant to the 
principles of true philosophy. And how wonderful soever the art of 
alphabetical writing may appear, there can be no necessity for referring its 
introduction to divine inspiration, if the inventive powers of man be not 
demonstrably unequal to the task. Picture-writing is generally believed 
to have been the earliest mode of recording events, or communicating in- 
formation by permanent signs. This was probably succeeded by hiero- 
glyphical characters. How these pictures and hieroglyphical devices 
would, either through negligence or a desire to abbreviate, gradually vary 
their form, and lose their resemblance to the objects which they repre- 
sented, may be easily conceived. Hence that association, which existed 
between the sign and the thing signified, being founded in resemblance, 
would in process of time be entirely dissolved. This having taken place, 
hieroglyphical characters would naturally be converted into a mere verbal 
denotation, representative of words and not of things. Hence, as Goguet, 
in his work, " De l'Origine des Loix," &c, reasonably conjectures, would 
arise by a partial and easy analysis, a syllabic mode of denotation, which 
would naturally introduce a literal alphabet. This conjecture must seem 
highly probable, when it is considered, that both a verbal and syllabic 
mode of notation are still practised by some Eastern nations. 

B *2 



INTRODUCTION. 






sonants, the articulator c having sometimes the sound of k, 
and sometimes of s, one of these must be unnecessary. Q, 
having in all cases the sound of k, may likewise be deemed 
superfluous. W appears to me in every respect the same 
with the vowel u (oo), and is therefore supernumerary 1 . 
The double consonant x might be denoted by the combina- 
tion of its component letters, gs or ks. 

It is to be observed also, that g, when it has the soft sound, 
is a double consonant, and performs the same office as the 
letter j ; each having a sound compounded of the sounds of 
d and the French j. Thus, g in general has the same sound 
as j in join. J, however, is not, as some have supposed, re- 
solvable into two letters, for we have no character to express 
the simple sound of the French j, of which, with the conso- 
nant d, the sound of the English j is compounded. To re- 
solve it into dg, as some have done, is therefore an error ; as 
the soft g, without the aid of the other consonant, is precisely 
identical, in respect to sound, with the consonant j. The 
letter It is no consonant ; it is merely the note of aspiration. 

Our alphabet is likewise defective. There are nine simple 
vowel sounds, for which we have only six characters, two of 
which, as it has been already observed, perforin the same 
office. The simple vowel sounds are heard in these words, 

Hall, hat, hate, met, mete, fin, hop, hope, but, full. 

Some of these characters occasionally perform the office 
of diphthongs. Thus, in the word fine, the vowel i has the 
diphthongal sound of the letters a e, as these are pronounced 
in French ; and the vowel u frequently represents the diph- 
thong eu (e-oo), as fume (fe-oom). 

There are, besides, four different consonants for which we 
have no proper letters ; namely, the initial consonant in the 
word thin, the initial consonant in then, the sibilating sound 
of sh, and the final consonant (marked ng), as in the word 



a lam aware, that in considering the letters y and w to be the same 
with i and u (oo), I maintain an opinion, the truth of which has been 
disputed. The reasons, however, which have been assigned for rejecting 
it do not appear to me satisfactory. 



INTRODUCTION. 5 

Consonants are generally divided into mutes and semi- 
vowels. The mutes are those which entirely, and at once, 
obstruct the sound of the vowel, and prevent its continuation. 
These are called perfect mutes. Those which do not sud- 
denly obstruct it are called imperfect mutes. 

Semi-vowels are those consonants which do not entirely 
obstruct the voice : but whose sounds may be continued at 
pleasure, thus partaking of the nature of vowels. 

The nature of these consonants I proceed briefly to explain. 

A vowel sound may be continued at pleasure, or it may be 
terminated, either by discontinuing the vocal effort, in which 
case it is not articulated by any consonant, as in pronounc- 
ing the vowel o ; or by changing the conformation of the 
mouth, or relative position of the organs of speech, so that 
the vowel sound is lost by articulation, as in pronouncing the 
syllable or. It is to be observed, also, that a vowel may be 
articulated, not only by being terminated by a consonant, as 
in the example now given, but likewise by introducing the 
sound with that position of the organs, by which it had, in 
the former case, been terminated, as in pronouncing the 
syllable ro. 

In pronouncing the consonants, there are five distinguish- 
able positions of the organs a . The first is the application 
of the lips to each other, so as to close the mouth. Thus 
are formed the consonants p, b, and m. 

In the second position, the under lip is applied to the fore 
teeth of the upper jaw; and in this manner we pronounce 
the consonants/ 1 and v. 

The third position is, when the tongue is applied to the 
fore teeth ; and thus we pronounce th. 

In the fourth position we apply the fore part of the tongue 
to the fore part of the palate, and by this application we pro- 
nounce the letters t, d, s, z, r, I, n. 

The fifth position is, when the middle part of the tongue 
is applied to the palate, and thus we pronounce k, the hard 
sound of g (as in ga), sh, j, and ng. 

In the first position we have three letters, of which the 
most simple, and indeed the only articulator, being abso- 

a The mouth is not the proper organ for producing sound ; but merely 
the organ for modulating and articulating the specific sounds. 



6 INTRODUCTION. 

lutely mute, is p. In the formation of this letter, nothing is 
required but the sudden closing of the mouth, and stopping 
the vowel sound ; or the sound may be articulated by the 
sudden opening of the lips, in order to emit the compressed 
sound of the vowel. 

Now, if instead of simply expressing the vowel sound by 
opening the lips, in saying for example pa, we shall begin to 
form a guttural sound, the position being still preserved ; then, 
on opening the lips, we shall pronounce the syllable ba. The 
guttural sound is produced by a compression of the larynx, 
or windpipe ; and is that kind of murmur, as Bishop Wilkins 
expresses it, which is heard in the throat, before the breath 
is emitted with the vocal sound. B, therefore, though justly 
considered as a mute, is not a perfect mute. 

The mouth being kept in the same position, and the breath 
being emitted through the nostrils, the letter m is produced. 

In the first position, therefore, we have a perfect mute p, 
having no audible sound ; a labial and liquid consonant m, 
capable of a continued sound ; and between these two ex- 
tremes we have the letter b, somewhat audible, though dif- 
ferent from any vocal sound. 

Here, then, are three things to be distinguished. 1st, The 
perfect mute, having no sound of any kind : 2dly, The per- 
fect consonant, having not only a proper, but continued 
sound : and 3dly, Between these extremes we find the letter 
b, having a proper sound, but so limited, that, in respect to 
the perfect consonant, it may be termed a mute, and in re- 
lation to the perfect mute may be properly termed imperfect. 

In the second position, we have the letters/* and v, neither 
of which are perfect mutes. The letter/ is formed by having 
the aspiration not altogether interrupted, but emitted forcibly 
between the fore teeth and under lip. This is the simple 
articulation in this position. If to this we join the guttural 
sound, we shall have the letter v, a letter standing in nearly 
the same relation to f, as b and m, in the first position, stand 
to p. The only difference between f and v is, that, in the 
former, the compression of the teeth and under lip is not so 
strong as in the latter ; and that the former is produced by the 
breath only, and the latter by the voice and breath combined. 

The consonant f, therefore, though not a mute like p, in 



INTRODUCTION. 7 

having the breath absolutely confined, may notwithstanding 
be considered as such, consistently with that principle, by 
which a mute is understood to be an aspiration without gut- 
tural sound. 

Agreeably to the distinction already made, v may be termed 
a perfect consonant, andean imperfect one, having no proper 
sound, though audible. Thus we have four distinctions in 
our consonantal alphabet ; namely, of perfect and imperfect 
consonants ; perfect and imperfect mutes : thus, 

p is a perfect mute, having no sound. 

b an imperfect mute, having proper sound, but limited. 

m a perfect consonant, having sound, and continued, 
/"an imperfect consonant, having no sound, but audible. 

In the third position we have th as heard in the words 
then and thin, formed by placing the tip of the tongue be- 
tween the teeth, and pressing it against the upper teeth. 
The only difference between these articulations is, that like 
f and v, the one is formed by the breath only, and the other 
by the breath and voice together a . 

Here also may be distinguished the perfect and the im- 
perfect consonant ; for the th in thin has no sound, but is 
audible, whereas the th in this, there, has a sound, and that 
continued b . 

In the fourth position there are several consonants formed. 

1st, If the breath be stopped, by applying the fore part of 
the tongue forcibly to that part of the palate, which is con- 
tiguous to the fore teeth, we produce the perfect mute t, 
having neither aspiration nor guttural sound. By accom- 
panying this operation of the tongue and palate with the gut- 
tural sound, we shall pronounce the letter d, which, like b, of 
the first position, may be considered as a mute, though not 
perfect. For in pronouncing ed, the tongue at first gently 
touches the gum, and is gradually pressed closer, till the sound 
is obstructed ; whereas in pronouncing et, the tongue is at 
once pressed so close, that the sound is instantly intercepted. 

2dly, If the tip of the tongue be turned up towards the 

a The sound of th in thin, is usually marked with a stroke through 
the h, to distinguish it from its other sound ; thus, thick. This distinc- 
tion is by some writers reversed. 

b Hutton*s Investigation of the Principles of Knowledge, vol. ii. p. 688. 



8 INTRODUCTION. 

upper gum, so as not to touch it, and thus the breath be cut 
by the sharp point of the tongue passing through the narrow 
chink left between that and the gum, we pronounce the sibi- 
lating sound of s. If we accompany this operation with a 
guttural sound, as in b, ?;, and th in then, we shall pronounce 
the letter z; the same difference subsisting between s and z 
as between f and v, p and b, tfi and th. 

3dly, If we make the tip of the tongue vibrate rapidly be- 
tween the upper and lower jaw, so as not to touch the latter, 
and the former but gently, we shall pronounce the letter r. 
The more closely and forcibly the tongue vibrates against the 
upper jaw, the stronger will the sound be rendered. It is 
formed about the same distance from the teeth as the letter 
d, or rather somewhat behind it. 

4thly, If the end of the tongue be gently applied to the 
fore part of the palate, a little behind the seat of the letter d, 
and somewhat before the place of r, and the voice be suf- 
fered to glide gently over the sides of the tongue, we shall 
pronounce the letter I. Here the breadth of the tongue is 
contracted, and a space left for the breath to pass from the 
upper to the under part of the tongue, in forming this the 
most vocal of all the consonants. 

5thly, If the aspirating passage, in the formation of the 
preceding consonant, be stopped, by extending the tongue 
to its natural breadth, so as to intercept the voice, and pre- 
vent its exit by the mouth, the breath emitted through the 
nose will give the letter n. 

In the fifth position, namely, when we apply the middle or 
back part of the tongue to the palate, we have the consonants 
k, $,sh,j, and ^. 

If the middle of the tongue be raised, so as to press closely 
against the roof of the mouth, and intercept the voice at 
once, we pronounce the letter k (ek). If the tongue be not 
so closely applied at first, and the sound be allowed to con- 
tinue a little, we have the letter g {eg). Thus ek and eg bear 
the same analogy to each other, as et and ed of the fourth 
position. If the tongue be protruded towards the teeth, so as 
not to touch them, and be kept in a position somewhat flatter 
than in pronouncing the letter s, the voice and breath passing 
over it through a wider chink, we shall have the sound of esh. 



INTRODUCTION. 



9 



If we apply the tongue to the palate as in pronouncing sh, 
but a little more forcibly, and accompanying it with the 
guttural sound, we shall have the sound of the French j. 
Thusy is in this position analogous to the letters b, v, th, in 
the first, second, and third positions, and is a simple con- 
sonant : j in English is a double consonant, compounded of 
d and the French j, as in join. 

If we raise the middle of the tongue to the palate gently, 
so as to permit part of the voice to issue through the mouth, 
forcing the remainder back through the nose, keeping at the 
same time the tongue in the same position as in pronouncing 
eg, we shall have the articulating sound of ing, for which we 
have no simple character. 

The only remaining letter h is the note of aspiration, formed 
in various positions, according to the vowel with which it is 
combined. 

The characters of the several letters may be seen in the 
following table : 



Perfect 
Mutes. 


Sounded, or 
Imperfect. 


Imperfect 
Consonants. 


Perfect. 


P 


B 












M 






F 


V 






th 


th the 


T 


D 










S 


Z 








R 


i 




L 






N 


K 


G 










Sh 


J French 








»g 



10 INTRODUCTION. 



What effect the compression of the larynx has in articu- 
lation may be seen by comparing these pairs of consonants : 






ith compression. 

B 


Without 


compression. 
P 


G 




K 


D 




T 


Z 




S 


Th 




Th 


V 




F 


J 




Sh 



These, as Mr. Tooke observes, differ, each from its 
partner, by a certain unnoticed and almost imperceptible 
motion or compression of or near the larynx. This com- 
pression, he remarks, the Welsh never use. For instead of 

I vow by God, that Jenkin is a wizard ; 
they say, 

I fow by Cot, that Shenkin iss a wisart. 

The consonants have been distributed into different 
classes, according to the organs chiefly employed in their 
formation. 

The Labial are eb, ep, ef, ev. 

Dental ed, et, eth, eth. 

Palatal eg, ek, el, er, ess, esh, ez, ej. 

Nasal em, en, ing. 

The association of two vowels, whether the sound of each 
be heard or not, is called -a diphthong, and the concurrence of 
three is called a triphthong. 

Of diphthongs there are twenty, viz. ai, au, ea, ee, ei, eo, 
eu, ie, oa, oo, ui, ay, ey, uy, oi, oy, ou, aw, ew, ow. Of the 
diphthongs seventeen have a sound purely monophthongal ; 
hence they have been called improper diphthongs. It would 
be idle to dispute the propriety of a term almost universally 
adopted; but to call that a diphthong whose sound is mo- 



INTRODUCTION. 11 

nophthongal is an abuse of language, and creates confusion. 
The only proper diphthongs in our language are eu, oi, ou, 
in which each vowel is distinctly heard, forming together 
one syllable. The triphthongs are three, eau, ieu, iew. Of 
these, the first eau is sometimes pronounced eu, as in beauty ; 
sometimes o, as in beau ; the other two have the diph- 
thongal sound of eu. 






PART I. 
ETYMOLOGY. 



OF WORDS IN GENERAL, AND THE PARTS OF SPEECH. 

A word, in oral language, is either a significant simple 
sound, or a significant combination of sounds. In written 
language, it may be defined to be a simple character, or com- 
bination of characters, expressive of significant sounds, simple 
or compound. 

A word of one syllable is called a monosyllable ; of two 
syllables, a dissyllable ; a word of three syllables, a trisyllable ; 
and a word of more than three syllables is called a poly- 
syllable. The last term, however, is frequently applied to 
words exceeding two syllables. 

Words are either derivative or primitive. 

A primitive is that which is formed from no other word, 
being itself a root, whence others spring, as angel, spirit, 
school. 

A derivative is that which is derived from some other word, 
as angelic, spiritual, scholar. 

A compound is a word made up of two or more words, as 
archangel, spiritless, schoolman. 

In examining the character of words as significant of 
ideas, we find them reducible into classes, or denominations, 
according to the offices which they severally perform. These 
classes are generally called parts of speech ; and how many 
of these belong to language has long been a question among 
philosophers and grammarians. Some have reckoned two. 



ETYMOLOGY. 13 

some three, and others four; while the generality have 
affirmed, that there are not fewer than eight, nine, or ten a . 
This strange diversity of opinion has partly arisen from a 
propensity to judge of the character of words more from 
their form, which is a most fallacious criterion, than from 
their import or signification. One thing appears certain, 
how much soever the subject may have been obscured by 
scholastic refinements, that to assign names to objects of 
thought, and to express their properties and qualities, are the 
only indispensable requisites in language. If this be ad- 
mitted, it follows, that the noun and the verb are the only 
parts of speech which are essentially necessary ; the former 
being the name of the thing of which we speak, and the 
latter, verb, (or the word, by way of eminence,) expressing 
what we think of it b . All other sorts of words must be 
regarded as subsidiaries, convenient perhaps for the more 
easy communication of thought, but by no means indis- 
pensably requisite. 

Had we a distinct name for every individual object of 
sensation or thought, language would then be composed 
purely of proper names, and thus become too great a load 
for any memory to retain. Language, therefore, must be 
composed of general signs, that it may be remembered ; and 
as all our sensations and perceptions are of single objects, 
it must also be capable of denoting individuals. Now, 
whatever mode be adopted to render general terms signifi- 
cant of individual objects, or whatever auxiliaries be em- 

a Plato and Aristotle, when they treat of prepositions, considered the 
noun and the verb as the only essential parts of speech ; these, without 
the aid of any other word, being capable of forming a sentence. Hence 
they were called ra iy^yxoTara fxeprj tov \6yov, "the most animated parts 
of speech." The latter of these philosophers, in his Poetics, admits 
four, adding to the noun and the verb the article and the conjunction. 
The elder Stoics made five, dividing the noun into proper and appellative. 
b Noun, Nomen de quo loquimur. 

Verb, Verbum seu quod loquimur. — Qzcint. lib. i. 4. 
Horace has been thought by some to countenance this doctrine when 
he says, 

" Donee verba, quibus voces sensusque notarent, 
Nominaque invenere." — Lib. i. Sat. 3. 



14 ETYMOLOGY. 






ployed for this purpose, the general term, with its indi- 
viduating word, must be regarded as a substitute for the 
proper name. Thus man is a general term to denote the 
whole of a species ; if I say, the man, this man, that man, it 
is obvious that the words the, this, and that, termed definitives, 
serve, with the general term, as a substitute for the proper 
name of the individual. 

Hence it is evident, that those words which are termed 
definitives, how useful soever, cannot be regarded as indis- 
pensable. 

The pronoun is clearly a substitute for the noun : it cannot 
therefore be deemed essential. The adjective expressing 
merely the property or quality in concreto, without affirma- 
tion, may be dispensed with ; the connexion of a substance 
with a quality or property being expressible by the noun 
and the verb. Thus, "a good man" is equivalent to "a 
man of, with, or having, goodness." Adverbs, which have 
been termed attributes of the second order, are nothing but 
abbreviations, as, here, for in this place, bravely, for brave 
like. These, therefore, cannot be considered as essentials 
in language. In the same manner it might be shown, that 
all parts of speech, noun and verb excepted, are either 
substitutes or abbreviations, convenient indeed, but not in- 
dispensably requisite. But, as there will be occasion to 
illustrate this theory," when the generally received parts of 
speech are severally examined, it is unnecessary to enlarge 
on the subject at present. 

Though the essential parts of speech in every language 
are only two, the noun and the verb ; yet, as there is in all 
languages a number of words not strictly reducible to either 
of these primary divisions, it has been usual with gram- 
marians to arrange words into a variety of different classes. 
This distribution is partly arbitrary, there being no definite 
or universally-received principle, by which to determine 
what discriminative circumstances are sufficient to entitle 
any species of words to the distinction of a separate order. 
Hence grammarians are not agreed concerning the number 
of these subordinate classes. But, into whatever number of 
denominations they may be distributed, it should be always 



ETYMOLOGY. 15 

remembered, that the only necessary parts of speech are 
noun and verb ; every other species of words being admitted 
solely for despatch or ornament. The parts of speech in 
English may be reckoned ten: Noun, Article, Pronoun, 
Adjective, Verb, Participle, Adverb, Preposition, Conjunc- 
tion, Interjection. 



16 ETYMOLOGY 






CHAPTER I. 



OF THE NOUN. 



SECTION I. 

Noun (Nomen) is that part of speech which expresses the 
subject of discourse, or which is the name of the thing spoken 
of, as, table, house, river. 

Of nouns there are two kinds, proper and appellative. 

A proper noun, or name, is the name of an individual, as 
Alexander, London, Vesuvius. 

An appellative, or common noun, expresses a genus, or 
class of things, and is common or applicable to every indi- 
vidual of that class. 

Nouns or Substantives (for these terms are equivalent) 
have also been divided into natural, artificial, and abstract. 
Of the first class, man, horse, tree, are examples. The names 
of things of our own formation are termed artificial substan- 
tives, as, watch, house, ship. The names of qualities or pro- 
perties, conceived as existing by themselves, or separated 
from the substances to which they belong, are called abstract 
nouns ; while Adjectives, expressing these qualities as con- 
joined with their subjects, are called concretes. Hard, for 
example, is termed the concrete, hardness the abstract. 

Nouns have also been considered as denoting genera, 
species, and individuals. Thus man is a generic term, an 
Englishman a special term, and George an individual. Ap- 
pellative nouns being employed to denote genera or species, 
and these orders comprising each many individuals, hence 
arises that accident of a common noun, called Number, by 
which we signify, whether one or more individuals of any 
genus or species be intended. 

In English there are two numbers, the singular and the 



ETYMOLOGY, 17 

plural. The singular, expressing only one of a class or genus, 
is the noun in its simple form, as, river ; the plural, denoting 
more than one, is generally formed by adding the letter s to 
the singular, as, rivers*. To this rule, however, there are 
many exceptions. 

Nouns ending in ch, sh, ss, or x, form their plural by adding 
the syllable es to the singular number, as, church, churches. 
Dr. Whately, (Archbishop of Dublin,) in violation of 
this universal rule, writes premiss in the singular number, 
and premises in the plural. (See his Logic, pp. 25, 26.) 
Premise, like promise, is the proper term, and makes pre- 
mises in the plural. Premiss and premises are repugnant to 
all analogy. — Ch hard takes s for the plural termination, and 
not es, as patriarch, patriarchs ; distich, distichs. 

Nouns ending in f or fe, make their plural by changing 
f or fe into ves, as, calf, calves ; knife, knives. Except 
hoof, roof, grief dwarf mischief, handkerchief, relief, muff, 
ruff, cuff, snuff, stuff, puff, cliff, skiff, with a few others, 
which in the formation of their plurals follow the general 
rule. 

Nouns in o impure form their plural by adding es, as, hero, 
heroes ; echo, echoes : those which end in o pure, by adding s, 
as, folio, folios. 

Some nouns have their plural in en, thus following the 
Teutonic termination, as, ox, oxen; man, men. 

Some are entirely anomalous, as, die, dice ; penny, pence ; 
goose, geese; sow, swine; and brother makes brethren^, 
when denoting persons of the same society or profession. 
Die, a stamp for coining, makes dies in the plural. 

Index makes in the plural indexes, when it expresses a 
table of contents, and indices, when it denotes the exponent 
of an algebraic quantity. 

The plural number, and the genitive singular, seem to have been 
originally formed by adding er to the nominative singular, as you, you-er, 
your ; they, they-er, their ; ive, we-er, our. This termination was after- 
wards changed into en, and then into es or s. Thus we have still in pro- 
vincial usage, though now almost entirely obsolete, childer for the plural 
of child, and the double plural in child-er-en, children, with the double 
genitive in west-er-en, western. 

b Brethren, in Scripture, is used for brothers. 



18 



ETYMOLOGY. 



Some are used alike in both numbers, as, hose'', deer, sheep, 
these being either singular or plural. 

Nouns expressive of whatever nature or art has made 
double or plural have no singular, as, bowels, lungs, scissors, 
ashes, belloivs. 

Nouns ending in y impure form their plural by changing y 
into ies, as quality, qualities. 

Nouns purely Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, &c, retain 
their original plurals. 





Sing. 


PL 


Lat. 


Arcanum 


Arcana 


Fr. 


Beau 


Beaux 


Lat. 


Erratum 


Errata 


Fr. 


Monsieur 


Messieurs, Messrs 


Heb. 


Cherub 


Cherubim 


Heb. 


Seraph 


Seraphim 


Lat. 


Magus 


Magi 


Gr. 


Phenomenon 


Phenomena 


Lat. 


Stratum 


Strata 


Gr. 


Automaton 


Automata 


Lat. 


Vortex 


Vortices 


Lat. 


Radius 


Radii 


Lat. 


Genus 


Genera 


Gr. 


Crisis 


Crises 


Gr. 


Emphasis 


Emphases 


Gr. 


Hypothesis 


Hypotheses 


Lat. 


Genius 


Genii, 



when denoting aerial spirits; but when signifying men of 
genius, or employed to express the plural of that combina- 
tion of mental qualities which constitutes genius, it follows 
the general rule. 

A proper name has a plural number when it becomes the 
name of more individuals than one, as, the two Scipios ; the 
twelve CcBsars. It is to be observed, however, that it ceases 
then to be, strictly speaking, a proper name. 

The obsolete plural occurs in the Bible. " These men were bound 
in their hosen and hats." — Dan. iii. 21. 



ETYMOLOGY. 19 

Some nouns have no plural. 1st. Those which denote 
things measured or weighed, unless when they express 
varieties, as, sugar, sugars ; wheat, wheats ; oil, oils ; wine, 
wines. Here, not numbers of individuals, but different 
species or classes, are signified. In this sense the nouns are 
used plurally. 

2d. Names of abstract, and also of moral qualities, as, 
hardness, softness, prudence, envy, benevolence, have no plural. 
It is to be observed, however, that several nouns of this class 
ending in y, when they do not express the quality or property 
in the abstract, but either its varieties or its manifestations, 
are used plurally. Thus we say, levities, affinities, gravities, 
&c. There maybe different degrees and different exhibitions 
of the quality, but not a plurality. 

Where displays of the mental quality are to be expressed, 
it is better in all cases to employ a periphrasis. Thus, in- 
stead of using with Hume (vol. vii. p. 411) the plural inso- 
lences, the expression acts of insolence, would be preferable. 

Some of those words which have no singular termination 
are names of sciences, as, mathematics, metaphysics, politics, 
ethics, pneumatics, &c. 

Of these, the term ethics is, I believe, considered as either 
singular or plural. 

Mathematics is generally construed as plural ; sometimes, 
however, we find it as singular. " It is a great pity," says 
Locke, (vol. iii. p. 427, 8vo. 1794,) " Aristotle had not under- 
stood mathematics, as well as Mr. Newton, and made use of 
it in natural philosophy." 

" But when mathematics," says Mr. Harris, " instead of 
being applied to this excellent purpose, are used not to ex- 
emplify logic, but to supply its place, no wonder if logic pass 
into contempt." 

Bacon improperly uses the word as singular and plural in 
the same sentence. u If a child," says he, " be bird-witted, 
that is, hath not the faculty of attention, the mathematics 
giveth a remedy thereunto ; for in them, if the wit be caught 
away but a moment, one is new to begin." He likewise fre- 
quently gives to some names of sciences a singular termina- 

c k 2 



20 ETYMOLOGY. 

tion ; and Beattie, with a few others, have, in some instances, 
followed his example. 

" Thus far we have argued for the sake of argument, and 
opposed metaphysic to metaphysic." — Essay on Truth. 

" See physic beg the Stagy rite's defence, 

See metaphysic call for aid on sense." — Pope. 

This usage, however, is not general. 

Metaphysics is used both as a singular and plural noun. 

" Metaphysics has been defined, by a writer deeply read 
in the ancient philosophy, ' The science of the principles 
and causes of all things existing.' " — Encyc. Brit. Here 
the word is used as singular; as likewise in the following 
example : 

"Metaphysics hasbeen represented by painters and sculp- 
tors as a woman crowned and blindfolded, holding a sceptre 
in her hand, and having at her feet an hour-glass and a globe." 

" Metaphysics is that science, in which are understood the 
principles of other sciences." — Hutton. 

In the following examples it is construed as a plural noun. 

"Metaphysics tend only to benight the understanding in a 
cloud of its own making." — Knox. 

"Here, indeed, lies the justest and most plausible objec- 
tion against a considerable part of metaphysics, that they are 
not properly a science." — Hume. 

The latter of these usages is the more common, and more 
agreeable to analogy. The same observation is applicable to 
the terms politics, optics, pneumatics, and other similar names 
of sciences. 

" But in order to prove more fully that politics admit of 
general truths." — Hume. 

Here the term is used as plural. 

Folk and folks are used indiscriminately; but the plural 
termination is here superfluous, the word folk implying plu- 
rality. 

Means is used both as a singular and plural noun. Lowth 
recommends the latter usage only, and admits mean as the 
singular of means. But notwithstanding the authority of 



ETYMOLOGY. 21 

Hooker, Sidney, and Shakspeare, for the expressions this 
?nean 9 that mean, &c, and the recommendation they receive 
from analogy, custom has so long decided in favour of means, 
repudiating the singular termination, that it may seem, per- 
haps, idle, as well as fastidious, to propose its dismission. 

It is likewise observable, that the singular form of this noun 
is not to be found in our version of the Bible ; a circumstance 
which clearly shows, that the translators preferred the plural 
termination. 

That the noun means has been used as a substantive sin- 
gular by some of our best writers, it would be easy to prove 
by numberless examples. Let a few suffice. 

" By this means it became every man's interest, as well 
as his duty, to prevent all crimes." — Temple, vol. iii. p. 133. 

" And by this means I should not doubt." — Wilkins's real 
Character. 

" He by that means preserves his superiority." — Addison. 

"By this means alone the greatest obstacles will vanish." 
— Pope. 

" By this means there was nothing left to the parliament 
of Ireland." — Blackstone, vol. i. p. 102. 

" Faith is not only a means of obeying, but a principal act 
of obedience." — Young. 

u Evei'y means was lawful for the public safety." — Gibbon. 

That this word is also used as plural, the most inattentive 
English reader must have frequently observed. 

" He was careful to observe what means were employed by 
his adversaries to counteract his schemes." 

While we offer these examples to show that the term is 
used either as a singular or as a plural noun, we would at the 
same time remark, that though the expression " a mean " is 
at present generally confined to denote " a middle, or medium, 
between two extremes," we are inclined to concur with the 
learned Dr. Lowth, and to recommend a more extended use 
of the noun singular. This usage was common in the days of 
Shakspeare. 

" I '11 devise a mean to draw the Moor out of the way."' — 
Othello. 



22 ETYMOLOGY. 

11 Pamela's noble heart would needs gratefully make known 
the valiant mean of her safety." — Sidney. 

"Their virtuous conversation was a mean to work the 
Heathen's conversion unto Christ. 1 ' — Hooker. 

Melmoth, Beattie, and several other writers, distinguished 
by their elegance and accuracy of diction, have adopted this 
usage. A means, indeed, is a form of expression which, 
though not wholly unsupported by analogy, is yet so re- 
pugnant to the general idiom of our language, and seems so 
ill adapted to denote the operation of a single cause, that we 
should be pleased to see it dismissed from use. If we say, 
" This was one of the means which he employed to effect his 
purpose," analogy and metaphysical propriety concur in re- 
commending a mean, or one mean, as preferable to a means. 
News, alms, riches, pains, have been used as either singular 
or plural ; but we never say, " one of the news," " one of tho 
alms," " one of the riches," " one of the pains," as we say 
"one of the means;" we may, therefore, be justified, not- 
withstanding the authority of general usage, in pronouncing 
" a means " a palpable anomaly. 

News is likewise construed sometimes as a singular, and 
sometimes as a plural noun. The former usage, however, is 
far the more general. 

" A general joy at this glad news appeared." — Cowley. 

" No news so bad as this at home." — Shakspeare, Richard 
III. 

" The amazing news of Charles at once was spread." — 
Dry den. 

" The king was employed in his usual exercise of besieg- 
ing castles, when the news was brought of Henry's arrival." 
—Swift. 

" The only news you can expect from me is news from 
heaven." — Gay. 

" This is all the news talked of." — Pope. 

Swift, Pope, Gay, with most other classic writers of that 
age, seem to have uniformly used it as singular. 

A few examples occur of a plural usage. 

" When Rhea heard these news." — Raleigh, Hist. World. 



ETYMOLOGY. 23 

" Are there any news of his intimate friend ? " — Smollett. 

" News were brought to the queen." — Hume. 

The same rule as that just now recommended in regard to 
the noun means might perhaps be useful here also, namely, 
to consider the word as singular when only one article of in- 
telligence is communicated, and as plural when several new 
things are reported. 

Pains is considered as either singular or plural, some of 
our best writers using it in either way. This word is evi- 
dently of French extraction, being the same with peine, 
pains or trouble, and was originally used in a singular form 
thus, " Which may it please your highness to take the payne 
for to write." — Wolsey's Letter to Henry VIII. It seems 
probable, that this word, after it assumed a plural form, was 
more frequently used as a singular than as a plural noun. 
Modern usage, however, seems to incline the other way. A 
celebrated grammarian indeed, has pronounced this noun to 
be in all cases plural; but this assertion might be proved 
erroneous by numberless examples a . 

" The pains they had taken teas very great." — Clarendon. 

" Great pains has been taken." — Pope. 

"No pains is taken." — Pope. 

In addition to these authorities in favour of a singular 
usage, it may be observed, that the word much, a term of 
quantity, not of number, is frequently joined with it, as, 

" I found much art and pains employed." — Middleton. 

" He will assemble materials with much pains." — Boling- 
brohe on History. 

The word much is never joined to a plural noun ; much 
labours, much papers, would be insufferable b . 

Riches is generally now considered as a plural noun ; 
though it was formerly used either as singular or plural. 
This substantive seems to have been nothing but the French 
word richesse; and therefore no more a plural than gentle- 

a Baker inclines also to this usage in preference to the other ; but does 
not affirm it to be a plural noun. 

b Much is sometimes joined with collective nouns ; but these denote 
number in the aggregate ; thus, much company. 



24 ETYMOLOGY. 

nesse, distresse, and many others of the same kind. In this 
form we find it in Chaucer : 

" But for ye spoken of swiche gentlenesse, 
As is descended out of old richesse. 
And he that ones to love doeth his homage, 
Full often times dere bought is the richesse." 

Accordingly he gives it a plural termination, and uses it 
as a plural word. 

" Thou hast dronke so much hony of swete temporal 
richesses, and delices, and honours of this world." 

It seems evident, then, that this word was originally con- 
strued as a substantive singular, and even admitted a plural 
form. The orthography varying, and the noun singular 
assuming a plural termination, it came in time to be con- 
sidered by some as a noun plural. 

In our translation of the Bible, it is construed sometimes 
as a singular, but generally as a plural noun. 

" In one hour is so great riches come to nought." — Bible. 

" Riches take to themselves wings, and fly away." — Ibid. 

Modern usage, in like manner, inclines to the plural con- 
struction 5 there are a few authorities, however, on the other 
side, as, 

" Was ever riches gotten by your golden mediocrities ?" — 
Cowley. 

"The envy and jealousy which great riches is always at- 
tended with." — Moyle. 

Alms was also originally a noun singular, being a con- 
traction of the old Norman French almesse, the plural of 
which was almesses. 

" This almesse shouldst thou do of thy proper things." — 
Chaucer. 

" These ben generally the almesses and workes of charity." 
—Ibid. 

Johnson says this word has no singular. It was, in truth, 
a first a noun singular, and afterwards, by contraction, re- 
ceiving a plural form, it came to be considered by some as a 
noun plural. Johnson would have had equal, nay, perhaps, 
better authority for saying that this word has no plural. 



ETYMOLOGY. 25 

Our translators of the Bible seem to have considered it as 
singular. " To ask an alms," " to give much alms," and 
other similar phraseologies, occur in Scripture. Nay, 
Johnson himself has cited two authorities, in which the in- 
definite article is prefixed to it. 

" My arm'd knees, 

Which bow'd but in my stirrup, bend like his 
That hath received an alms." — Shakspeare. 

" The poor beggar hath a just demand of an alms from 
the rich man." — Swift. 

Lowth objected to the phraseology a means, for this 
reason, that means, being a plural noun, cannot admit the 
indefinite article, or name of unity. The objection would 
be conclusive, if the expressions this means, that means, did 
not oppose the learned author's opinion, that means is a 
noun plural. To the substantive alms, as represented by 
Johnson to have no singular, the objection is applicable. 

Thanks is considered to be a plural noun, though denoting 
only one expression of gratitude. It occurs in Scripture as 
a substantive singular. " What thank have ye ? " 

It has been observed, that many of those words which 
have no singular denote things consisting of two parts, and 
therefore have a plural termination. Hence the word pair is 
used with many of them, as, " a pair of bellows, a pair of 
scissors, a pair of colours, a pair of draivers" 



SECTION II. 
Of Genders, 



X 



We not only observe a plurality of substances, or of things 
of the same sort, whence arises the distinction of number ; 
but we distinguish also another character of some substances, 
which we call sex. Every substance is either male or female, 
or neither the one nor the other. In English, all male 



26 



ETYMOLOGY. 



animals are considered as masculine ; all female animals as 
feminine ; and all things inanimate, or destitute of sex, are 
termed neuter, as belonging neither to the male nor the 
female sex. In this distribution we follow the order of 
nature ; and our language is, in this respect, both simple and 
animated. 

The difference of sex is, in some cases, expressed by dif- 
ferent words, as, 



Masc, 


Fein. 


Boy 


Girl 


Buck 


Doe 


Bull 


Cow 


Bullock 


Heifer 


Boar 


Sow 


Drake 


Duck 


Friar 


Nun 


Gaffer 


Gammer 


Gander 


Goose 


Gelding 1 
Horse J 


Mare 


Milter 


Spawner 


Nephew 


Niece 


Ram 


Ewe 


Sloven 


Slut 


Stag 


Hind 


Widower 


Widow 


Wizard 


Witch 


Sometimes the female is 


distinguished by the te 


ess or ix. 




Masc. 


Fern. 


Abbot 


Abbess 


Actor 


Actress 


Adulterer 


Adulteress 


Ambassador 


Ambassadress 


Arbiter 


Arbitress 





ETYMOLOGY. 


Masc. 


Fern. 


Author 


Authoress 


Baron 


Baroness 


Chanter 


Chan tress 


Count 


Countess 


Deacon 


Deaconess 


Duke 


Duchess 


Elector 


Electress 


Emperor 


Empress 


Governor 


Governess 


Heir 


Heiress 


Hunter 


Huntress 


Jew 


Jewess 


Lion 


Lioness 


Marquis 


Marchioness 


Master 


Mistress 


Patron 


Patroness 


Prince 


Princess 


Peer 


Peeress 


Prior 


Prioress 


Poet 


Poetess 


Prophet 


Prophetess 


Shepherd 


Shepherdess 


Sorcerer 


Sorceress 


Traitor 


Traitress 


Tutor 


Tutress 


Tiger 


Tigress 


Viscount 


Viscountess 



27 



There are a few whose feminine ends in isc. viz, 



Masc. 
Administrator 
Executor 
Testator 
Director 



Fern. 
Administratrix 
Executrix 
Testatrix 
Directrix 



Where there is but one word to express both sexes, we 



28 ETYMOLOGY. 






add another word to distinguish the sex ; as, he-goat, she- 
goat; man-servant, maid-servant; cock-sparrow, hen-spar- 
row. 

It has been already observed, that all things destitute of 
sex are in English considered as of the neuter gender ; and, 
when we speak with logical accuracy, we follow this rule. 
Sometimes, however, by a figure in rhetoric, called personifi- 
cation, we assign sex to things inanimate. Thus, instead of 
" virtue is its own reward," we sometimes say, " virtue is her 
own reward;" instead of " it (the sun) rises," we say, "he 
rises;" instead of " it (death) advances with hasty steps," 
we say, " he advances." 

This figurative mode of expression, by which we give life 
and sex to things inanimate, and embody abstract qualities, 
forms a singular and striking beauty in our language, ren- 
dering it in this respect superior to the languages of Greece 
and Rome, neither of which admitted this animated phraseo- 
logy 3 . 

When we say, 

" The sun his orient beams had shed," 

the expression possesses infinitely more vivacity than 

" The sun its orient beams had shed." 

In assigning sex to things inanimate, it has been supposed 
that we have been guided by certain characters or qualities 
in the inanimate objects, as bearing some resemblance to the 
distinctive or characteristic qualities of male and female 
animals. Thus, it has been said, that those inanimate sub- 
stances, or abstract qualities, which are characterized by the 
attributes of giving or imparting, or which convey an idea of 
great strength, firmness, or energy, are masculine ; and that 
those, on the contrary, which are distinguished by the pro- 
perties of receiving, containing, and producing, or which 
convey an idea of weakness or timidity, having more of a 
passive than active nature, are feminine. Hence it has been 
observed, that the sun, death, time, the names also of great 

a The gender of mors, virtus, sol, Odvaros, dperrj, rjXios, was unalterably 
fixed 



ETYMOLOGY. 29 

rivers and mountains, are considered as masculine ; and that 
the moon, sl ship, the sea, virtue, in all its species, are con- 
sidered as feminine. Of these and such speculations it may 
be truly said, as the learned author of them remarks himself, 
that they are at best but ingenious conjectures. They certainly 
will not bear to be rigorously examined ; for there are not 
any two languages which harmonize in this respect, assigning 
the same sex to the same inanimate objects, nor any one lan- 
guage in which this theory is supported by fact a . Hence it 
is evident, that neither reason nor nature has any share in 
the regulation of this matter ; and that, in assigning sex to 
inanimate things, the determination is purely fanciful. In 
Greek, death is masculine : in Latin, feminine. In those 
languages the sun is masculine ; in the Gothic, German, 
Anglo-Saxon, and some other northern languages, it is femi- 
nine ; in Russian it is neuter. In several of the languages 
of Asia, the sun is feminine. According to our northern 
mythology, the sun was the wife of Tuisco. The Romans 
considered the winds as masculine; the Hebrews, says Ca- 
ramuel, represented them as nymphs. In the Hebrew lan- 
guage, however, they were of the masculine gender, as were 
also the sun and death. In short, we know not any two lan- 
guages which accord in this respect, or any one language in 
which sex is assigned to things inanimate according to any 
consistent or determinate rule. 

In speaking of animals whose sex is not known to us, or 
not regarded, we assign to them gender either masculine or 
feminine, according, as it would appear, to the characteristic 
properties of the animal himself. In speaking, for example, 
of the horse, a creature distinguished by usefulness and a 
certain generosity of nature, unless we be acquainted with 
the sex and wish to discriminate, we always speak of this 
quadruped as of the male sex ; thus, 

" While winter's shivering snow affects the horse 

With frost, and makes him an uneas}' course." — Creech. 

In speaking of a hare, an animal noted for timidity, we 

a It seems, however, to be more applicable to the English language 
than to any other with which I am acquainted. 



30 ETYMOLOGY. 

assign to it, if we give it sex, the feminine gender ; thus, 
" the hare is so timorous a creature, that she continually 
listens after every noise, and will run a long way on the least 
suspicion of danger : so that she always eats in terror." 

The elephant is generally considered as of the masculine 
gender, an animal distinguished not only by great strength 
and superiority of size, but also by sagacity, docility, and 
fortitude. 

" The elephant has joints, but not for courtesy ; 

His legs are for necessity, not flexure." — Shalcspeare. 

To a cat we almost always assign the female sex ; to a dog, 
on the contrary, or one of the canine species, we attribute the 
masculine gender. 

" A cat, as she beholds the light, draws the ball of her eye 
small and long." — Peacham on Drawing. 

" The dog is a domestic animal remarkably various in his 
species." 

It would be easy to illustrate, by more examples, this 
ascription of either male or female sex to animals, when we 
speak of them in the species, or are not acquainted with the 
sex of the individual ; but these now adduced will, I presume, 
be sufficient. 

By what principle this phraseology is dictated, or whether 
it be merely casual or arbitrary in its origin, it would be of 
no utility at present to inquire. It may be necessary, how- 
ever, to remark that, when speaking of animals, particularly 
those of inferior size, we frequently consider them as devoid of 
sex. " It is a bold and daring creature," says a certain writer, 
speaking of a cat, " and also cruel to its enemy; and never 
gives over, till it has destroyed it, if possible. It is also 
watchful, dexterous, swift, and pliable." 

Before I dismiss this subject, I would request the reader's 
attention to an idiom which seems to have escaped the notice 
of our grammarians. It frequently happens, as I have already 
observed, that our language furnishes two distinct terms for 
the male and the female, as shepherd, shepherdess. It is to 
be observed, however, that the masculine term has a general 
meaning, expressing both male and female, and is always 



ETYMOLOGY. 31 

employed, when the office, occupation, profession, &c, and 
not the sex of the individual is chiefly to be expressed ; and 
that the feminine term is used in those cases only, when 
discrimination of sex is indispensably necessary. This 
may be illustrated by the following examples. If I say, 
" The poets of this age are distinguished more by correctness 
of taste, than sublimity of conception," I clearly include in 
the term poet, both male and female writers of poetry. If I 
say, " She is the best poetess in this country," I assign her 
the superiority over those only of her own sex. If I say, 
" She is the best poet in this country," I pronounce her 
superior to all other writers of poetry, both male and female. 
" Spinning," says Lord Karnes in his Sketches, " is a female 
occupation, and must have had a female inventor." If he 
had said " a female inventress," the expression would have 
been pleonastic. If he had said "must have had an in- 
ventress," he would not have sufficiently contrasted the male 
and the female ; he would have merely predicated the neces- 
sity of an inventress. He, therefore, properly adopts the 
term inventor as applicable to each of the sexes, limiting 
it to the female by the appropriate term a . When distinction 
of sex is necessary for the sake of perspicuity, or where the 
sex, rather than the general idea implied by the term, is the 
primary object, the feminine noun must be employed to ex- 
press the female ; thus, " I hear that some authoresses are 

a These observations will sufficiently explain the reason why we can* 
not concur with Dr. Johnson in thinking that there is M an impropriety 
in the termination," when we say of a woman, " She is a philosopher." 
The female termination in such examples is not wanted ; it would be 
pleonastic and improper. The meaning is, " She is a person given to the 
study of nature." If we had been speaking of a lady devoted to philo- 
sophy, and had occasion afterwards to mention her by an appellative, we 
should feel the want of the appropriate termination ; and instead of say- 
ing "the philosopher," we should wish, for the sake of discrimination, 
to be able to say, " the philosophress," or to employ some equally dis- 
tinctive term. In the example adduced by the learned lexicographer, the 
female termination is superfluous ; and would intimate a distinction of 
philosophic character, instead of a distinction of sex, the latter being 
denoted by the female pronoun. 



32 ETYMOLOGY. 






engaged in this work." — Political Register. Here the 
feminine term is indispensable 51 . This subject will be re- 
sumed in " the Critical Remarks and Illustrations." 



SECTION III. 

Of Cases. 



The third accident of a noun is case, (casus, or fall,) so 
called because ancient grammarians, it is said, represented 
the cases as declining or falling from the nominative, which 
was represented by a perpendicular, and thence called Casus 
rectus, or upright case, while the others were named Casus 
obliqui, or oblique cases. The cases, in the languages of 
Greece and Rome, were formed by varying the termination ; 
and were intended to express a few of the most obvious and 
common relations. 

In English there are only three cases, nominative, geni- 
tive, and objective, or accusative case. In substantives the 

a We remark, in some instances, a similar phraseology in Greek and 
Latin. Qebs and 6ea, deus and dea, are contradistinguished as in English, 
god and goddess ; the former of each pair strictly denoting the male, and 
the latter the female. But the former, we find, has a generical meaning, 
expressing " a deity," whether male or female; and is frequently used 
when the female is designed, if divinity in the abstract be the primary 
idea without regard to the sex, thus, 

" tov 8' i^pnat- 'ACppoBtTr], 

'Peia fiaX' cocrre 6eos." — Horn. II. iii. 380. 
Here the term 6e6s is applied to Venus, the character of divinity, and not 
the distinction of sex, being the chief object of the poet's attention. Qeos 
is, therefore, to be considered as either masculine or feminine. 
" 'AXXa fi a Aios y dX/a/xa #eos\" — Soph. Aj. 401. 
" Mtjtc tis ovv ^Xeta 6eos." — Horn. II. 0. 7. 
" Descendo, ac ducente deo, flammam inter et hostes 

Expedior Virg. Mn. ii. 632. 

Here, also, deo is applied to Venus, as likewise in the following passage, 
" deuin esse indignam credidi." — Plaut. Veen. 2, 1. 10. 



ETYMOLOGY/. 33 

nominative case and the objective, have, like neuter nouns in 
Greek and Latin, the same form, being distinguishable from 
each other by nothing but their place ; thus, 
Nom. Obj. 

Achilles slew Hector, 

Hector sleiu Achilles, 

where the meaning is reversed by the interchange of the 
nouns, the nominative or agent being known by its being 
placed before the verb ; and the subject of the action by its 
following it. Pronouns have three cases, that is, two in- 
flexions from the nominative, as, i~, mine, me ; thou, thine, 
thee. 

The genitive in English, by some called the possessive 
case, is formed by adding to the nominative the letter s, 
with an apostrophe before it, as king, hinges. It expresses 
a variety of relations, and was hence called by the Greeks 
the general case a . The relation which it most commonly 
denotes is that of property or possession, as, the king's 
crown; and is, in general, the same with that which is de- 
noted by the word of, as, the crown of the king, the rage of 
the t grant, the death of the prince, equivalent to the king's 
crown, the t grant's rage, the prince's death. 

The nature of the relation which the genitive expresses 
must, in some instances, be collected from the scope of the 
context ; for, in English, as in most other languages, this 
case frequently involves an ambiguity. When I say, 
"neither life nor death shall separate us from the love of 
God," it may mean, either from the love which we owe to 
God, or the love which he bears to us ; for " God's love " 
may denote either the relation which the affection bears 
to its subject, or that which it bears to its object. If the 
latter be the meaning intended, the ambiguity may be pre- 
vented by saying, " love to God." 

An ambiguity likewise arises from it, as expressing either 
the relation of the effect to its cause, or that of the accident 

a ILtohtis yeviKi]: general case. It has been supposed by some that 
the Latins, mistaking the import of the Greek term, called this the geni- 
tive case. See Ency. Brit., Art. Grammar. 

D 



34 ETYMOLOGY. 

to its subject. " A little after the reformation of Luther," 
says Swift. This may import either the change produced by 
Luther, or a change produced in him. The latter indeed 
is properly the meaning, though not that which was intended 
by the author. He should have said, " the reformation by 
Luther." It is clear, therefore, that the relation expressed 
by the genitive is not uniformly the same, that the phrase 
may be interpreted either in an active or passive sense % and 
that the real import must be collected not from the expres- 
sion, but the context. 

Mr. Harris has said, that the genitive is formed to express 
all relations commencing from itself, and offers the analysis 
of this case in all modern languages as a proof. That it ex- 
presses more than this, both in English and Latin, and that 
it denotes relations, not only commencing from itself, but 
likewise directed to itself, the examples already quoted are 
sufficient to prove. Nay, were it necessary, it would be easy 
to demonstrate, that this ambiguity in the use of the genitive 
is not confined to these two languages, but is found in Greek, 
Hebrew, Italian, and, I believe, in all the modern languages 
of Europe. 

Concerning the origin of the English genitive, gramma- 
rians and critics are not agreed. That the cases, or nominal 
inflexions, in all languages were originally formed by annex- 
ing to the noun in its simple form a word significant of the 
relation intended, is a doctrine which, I conceive, is not only 
approved by reason, but also attested by fact. That any 
people, indeed, in framing their language, should affix to 
their npuns insignificant terminations, for the purpose of 
expressing any relation, is a theory extremely improbable. 
Numerous as the inflexions are in the Greek and Latin lan- 
guages, I am persuaded that, were we sufficiently acquainted 

a Amor Dei denotes either amor quo Deus amat, or quo Deus amatur. 
Reformatio Lutheri, either qua reformavit, or qua reformatus est. Injuria 
patris, desiderium amici, with many other examples which might be pro- 
duced, have either an active or passive sense, rj ayairr] rov Qeov, D2\1H 
miT, Pamore de Dio, l'amour de Dieu, severally involve the same 
ambiguity with " the love of God.' 



ETYMOLOGY. 35 

with their original structure, we should find that all these 
terminations were at first words significant, subjoined to the 
radix, and afterwards abbreviated. This opinion is cor- 
roborated by the structure of the Hebrew, and some other 
oriental languages, whose affixes and prefixes, in the forma- 
tion of their cases and conjugation of their verbs, we can 
still ascertain. 

Now the English genitive being formed by annexing to 
the nominative the letter s, with an apostrophe, several 
critics, among whom is Mr. Addison, deliver it as their 
opinion, that this termination is a contraction for the posses- 
sive pronoun his. This opinion appears to be countenanced 
by the examples which occur in the Bible, and Book of 
Common Prayer, in which, instead of the English genitive, 
we find the nominative with the possessive pronoun masculine 
of the third person ; thus, " for Christ his sake," " Asa his 
heart was perfect." Dr. Lowth considers these expressions 
as errors either of the printers or the authors. That they are 
not typographical mistakes I am fully persuaded. They oc- 
cur in the books now mentioned, and also in the works of 
Bacon, Donne, and many other writers, much too frequently 
to admit this supposition. If errors, therefore, they are errors 
not of the printers, but of the authors themselves. 

To evince the incorrectness of this phraseology, and to 
show that Addison's opinion is erroneous, Dr. Lowth observes 
that, though we can resolve " the king's crown " into "the king 
his crown," we cannot resolve " the queen's crown " into 
" the queen her crown," or " the children's bread " into " the 
children their bread." This fact, he observes, ought to have 
demonstrated to Mr. Addison the incorrectness of his opinion. 
Lowth, therefore, refers the English to the Saxon genitive 
for its real origin, and observes, that its derivation from that 
genitive decides the question a . Hickes, in his Thesaurus, 

a Of the six declensions, to one or other of which the learned Dr. 
Hickes conceives the inflexion of almost all the Saxon nouns may be re- 
duced, three form their genitive in es, as, word, wordes ; smith, smithes. 
In the Mcesogothic, a kindred language, the genitive ends in s, some 
nouns having is, some us, and others as, as, fan, fanins ; faukagagja, 
fauhagagjis. 

D 2 



36 ETYMOLOGY. 

had previously delivered the same opinion. Speaking of the 
Anglo-Saxon genitive in es, he observes, " Inde in nostratium 
sermone nominnm substantivorum, genitivus singularis, et 
norninativus pluralis, exeunt in es, vel S." From the intro- 
duction of the Saxons into this island, to the Norman con- 
quest, the Saxon genitive was in universal use. From the 
latter period to the time of Henry II. (1170), though the 
English language underwent some alterations, we still find 
the Saxon genitive. Thus, in a poem, entitled " The Life of 
St. Margaret," in the Normanno-Saxon dialect, we find the 
following among other examples, " christes angles," and the 
pronoun hyr*. (his) spelled is; thus, " Theodosius was is 
name." — See Hickes, Thcs. vol. i. p. 226. 

Webster has asserted that, in the age of Edward the Con- 
fessor (1050), he does not find the Saxon genitive ; and as a 
proof that the pronoun his was used instead of the Saxon 
termination, he quotes a passage from a charter of Edward 
the Confessor, where the words, " bissop his land" occur, 
which he conceives to be equivalent to " bishop's land." 
Now, had he read but a small part of that charter, he would 
have found the Saxon genitive ; and what he imagines to be 
equivalent to the English genitive is neither that case, nor 
synonymous with it. The passage runs thus : " And ich ke 
]>e eu J?at Alfred havet iseld Gise bissop his land at Llyton ;" 
the meaning of which is, " Know that Alfred hath sold to 
Bishop Gise his land at Lutton." In the time of Richard 
II. (1385) we find Trevisa and Chaucer using the Saxon 
genitive. Thus, in Trevisa's translation of the Athanasian 
creed, we find among other examples, " Godes sight." 

In Gavin Douglas, who lived in the beginning of the 
sixteenth century, we find is instead of es, thus, faderis hands. 

In the time of Henry the Eighth we find, in the works of 
Sir T. More, both the Saxon and the English genitive ; and in 
a letter, written in 1559, by Maitland of Lethington,the Eng- 
lish genitive frequently occurs. Had this genitive, then, 
been an abbreviation for the noun and the pronoun his, the 
use of the words separately would have preceded their ab- 
breviated form in composition. This, however, was not the 
case. 



ETYMOLOGY. 37 

To form the genitive plural, we annex the apostrophe 
without the letter s, as eagles' wings, that is, the icings of 
eagles. The genitive singular of nouns terminating in s, is 
formed in the same manner, as, righteousness' sake, or the 
sake of righteousness. 

I finish this article with observing, that there are in Eng- 
lish a few diminutive nouns, so called from their expressing 
a small one of the kind. Some of these end in kin, from a 
Dutch and Teutonic word signifying a child, as manikin, a 
little man, lambkin, pipkin, thomkin. Proper names ending 
in kin belonged originally to this class of diminutives, as, Wil- 
kin, Willielmulus ; Halkin, Haiukin, Henriculus ; Tomkin, 
Thomulus ; Simkin, Peter kin, &c. 

Some diminutives end in ock, as, hill, hillock ; bull, bul- 
lock ; some in el,a.s pike, pickrel; cock, cockrel; sack, satchel ; 
some in ing, as goose, gosling. These seem to be the only 
legitimate ones, as properly belonging to our language. The 
rest are derived from Latin, French, Italian, and have various 
terminations. 



38 ETYMOLOGY. 



CHAPTER II. 



OF THE ARTICLE. 



Language is chiefly composed of general terms, most sub- 
stantives being the names of genera or species. When we 
find a number of substances resembling one another in their 
principal and most obvious qualities, we refer them to one 
species, to which we assign a name common to every in- 
dividual of that species. In like manner, when we find 
several of these species resembling one another in their chief 
properties, we refer them to a higher order, to which also we 
assign a common and more general name than that which 
was affixed to the inferior class. Thus we assign the gene- 
ral name man to the human species, as possessing a common 
form, and distinguished by the common attributes of life, 
reason, and speech. If we consider man as possessed of life 
only, we perceive a resemblance in this respect between him 
and other beings. To this higher class or genus, the cha- 
racteristic attribute of which is vitality, we affix the more 
generic name of animal \ Hence, when we use an appella- 
tive or common noun, it denotes the genus or class collect- 
ively, of which it is the name, as, 

" The proper study of mankind is man," i. e. not one man, 
not many men, but all men. 

Not only, however, has this rule its limitations, though 
these seem governed by no fixed principle, but we frequently 
find the articles admitted when the whole genus or species is 
evidently implied. Thus we may say, 

"Metal is specifically heavier than water;" i. e. not this 
or that metal, but all metals. But we cannot say, " Vege- 

a It must be obvious, tbat the terms general and universal belong not 
to real existences, but are merely denominations, the result of intellect, 
generalising a number of individuals under one head. 



ETYMOLOGY. 39 

table is specifically lighter than water;" or, "Mineral is 
specifically heavier than water." Again ; we say, " Man is 
born unto trouble ;" but we cannot say, ■- Tiger is ferocious," 
or, "Fox is cunning;" but, "The tiger, or a tiger, is fero- 
cious;" "The fox, or a fox, is cunning;" the expressions 
being applicable to the whole species. It would appear, in- 
deed, that when proper names assume the office of appel- 
latives, the reverse of the rule takes place. Thus we say, 
" A Douglas braves the pointed steel;" the meaning being 
" every Douglas." Suppress the indefinite article, and the 
general proposition becomes individual. 

But, though our words are general, all our perceptions are 
individual, having single existences for their objects. It is 
often necessary, however, to express two, three, or more of 
these individual existences ; and hence arises the use of that 
species of words which have been called numerals, that is, 
words denoting number. To signify unity or one of a class, 
our forefathers employed ae or ane, as ae man, ane ox. 
When unity, or the number one, as opposed to two or more, 
was to be expressed, the emphasis would naturally be laid 
on the word significant of unity ; and when unity was not 
so much the object as the species or kind, the term expres- 
sive of unity would naturally be unemphatical ; and hence 
ae, by celerity of pronunciation, would become a, and ane 
be shortened into an. These words a and an are now termed 
indefinite articles ; it is clear, however, that they are truly 
numerals, belonging to the same class with two, three, four, 
&c. ; or, perhaps, more properly, these numerals may be con- 
sidered as abbreviations for the repeated expression of the 
term one, By whatever name these terms, a, an, may be de- 
signed, it seems evident that they were originally synonymous 
with the name of unity, or rather themselves names of unity, 
emphasis only distinguishing whether unity or the species 
were chiefly intended. Hence a and an cannot be joined 
with a plural noun. 

Some grammarians, indeed, have asserted that in every 
example where a or an occurs, the term one may be sub- 
stituted in its stead, without in the least degree injuring the 
sense. As far as the primary idea denoted by these words 



40 ETYMOLOGY. 

is concerned, this opinion is doubtless incontrovertible, for 
they each express unity ; but with regard to the secondary 
or implied ideas which these terms convey, the difference is 
obvious. An example will illustrate this : If I say, " Will 
one man be able to carry this burden so far ? " I evidently 
oppose one to more : and the answer might be, " No ; but 
two men will." Let us substitute the term a, and say, 
" Will a man be able to carry this burden ? " Is the idea 
nowise changed by this alteration ? I apprehend it is ; for 
the answer might naturally be, " No ; but a horse will." I 
have here substituted «, for one ; the converse will equally 
show that the terms are by no means mutually convertible, 
or strictly synonymous. If, instead of saying, " A horse, a 
horse, a kingdom for a horse," I should say, " One horse, one 
horse, one kingdom for one horse," the sentiment, I conceive, 
would not be strictly the same. In both expressions the 
species is named, and in both one of that species is de- 
manded ; but with this difference, that in the former the 
name of the species is the emphatic word, and it opposes 
that species to every other; in the latter, unity of object 
seems the leading idea, " one kingdom for one horse." In 
this respect, our language appears to me to have a decided 
superiority over those languages where one word performs the 
office of what we term an article, and at the same time de- 
notes the idea of unity. Donnez-moi tin livre means either 
" give me one book," ►*. e. not two or more books; or " give 
me a book," that is, " a book, not something else; a book, not 
a pen," for example. 

I acknowledge that, in oral language, emphasis may serve 
to discriminate the sentiments, and prevent ambiguity. But 
emphasis is addressed to the ear only, not to the eye ; it can, 
therefore, be of no service in written language. It is true 
also, that by attending to the context, error may often be 
avoided; but let it be remembered, as Quintilian observes % 

a Non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit non intelligere curan- 
dum. — Inst. lib. viii. cap. 4. 

I am inclined to think that our language possesses a superiority in this 
respect over the Greek itself. 'Eyevero avdpccnros airecrTakiievos irapa rov 
®gov may signify either " man in the species, or an individual, was sent 



ETYMOLOGY. 41 

that language should be, not such as the reader may under- 
stand if he will take the trouble to examine it carefully, but 
such as he cannot even without effort fail to comprehend. 
When it is asserted, therefore, that one may in every case be 
substituted for a, without in the least degree injuring the ex- 
pression, the position appears to me erroneous and false. 
Whatever creates ambiguity, whether with respect to the 
primary or secondary ideas annexed to words, in some degree, 
without question, violates the sense. Be it observed also, 
that, though a, an, ae, ane, one, may have been all etymolo- 
gically the same, it does not follow, nor is it practically true, 
as has been now shown, that they are all precisely equivalent 
words. In Scotland, the distinction between a and ae is well 
known. " Give me a book," means any book, in contradistinc- 
tion to any other object, as " a chair," " a pen," " a knife ;" 
" give me ae book," is in contradistinction to one or more. 
Such also is the difference between a and one. 

It seems, therefore, undeniable that the word a, termed the 
indefinite article, was originally identical with the name of 
unity, expressing either one of any species, as opposed to 
more of that species, or one of this kind, as opposed to one 
of that. Whether the distinction of its noting one or unity, 
with less emphasis than the appropriate name of unity, 
should entitle it to be referred to a different class of words 
from the numeral one, and called an article, it is unimportant 
to inquire. To me, however, I must acknowledge the dis- 

from God." The author of the article Grammar, in the Encyc. Brit., 
observes, " that the word avOponvos is here restricted to an individual by 
its concord with the verb and the participle." If he mean by this that 
the term must be significant of only one individual, (and I can annex no 
other interpretation to his words,) because a singular verb and participle 
singular are joined with it, he errs egregiously. Numberless examples 
might be produced to evince the contrary. Job. v. 7. avOpcciros yevvdrat 
KOTTCd, "man (mankind) is born unto trouble;" where the subject is 
joined to a verb singular. Psal. xlix. 12. avdpomos iv npfj tbv ov avvrJKe, 
" man being in honour abideth not." Here also man for mankind is 
joined with a participle and verb singular. And here it may be per- 
tinently asked, would not the term one for a in the first example some- 
what alter the meaning, and convey an idea dilFerent from that intended 
by the evangelist? 



42 ETYMOLOGY. 

tinctive name of article assigned to this word appears to be 
useless. Were emphasis to be admitted as the principle of 
classification, (and I see no other distinction between a and 
one,) the parts of speech might be multiplied beyond number. 
Besides the words a and an, termed indefinite articles, as 
not defining which of the species is signified, we have also 
another word, the, named the definite article, because it is 
said to point out the individual object. This word, I doubt 
not, proceeded from the word this or that, much in the same 
manner as a and an from ae and ane. To what class of 
words this and that should be referred has been a subject of 
controversy \ That they arc not pronouns, as some have 
asserted, seems abundantly evident ; for they never represent 
a noun. By some they have been called definitives ; and, 
though this designation be not strictly consonant with their 
import, it is perhaps the least exceptionable. When opposed 
to each other, they appear to be reducible to that species of 
words termed adjectives of order ; the only difference between 
them and ordinary numerals being this, that the former ex- 
press the arrangement in relation to two objects, the latter in 
relation to a series. This means " the nearer," " the latter," 
or " the second ; " that, " the more remote," " the former," or 
" the first." Their office, in general, seems to be emphatic- 
ally to individuate some particular object whose character 
was either previously known, or is then described ; hence 
they have also been named demonstratives. Under which of 
the generally received parts of speech they should be com- 
prehended it may be difficult to determine. As, like simple 
attributives they accord with nouns, frequently denoting the 

a They are the Saxon words this or thes, " hie, haec, hoc," that or thcet, 
" ille, ilia, Mud," which were frequently used by the Saxons for what we 
term the definite article, as, send us on thas swyn, " send us into the 
swine." Mark v. 21, tlia eodon tha unclcsnan gastas on tha swyn, " then 
the unclean spirits entered into the swine." 

The Saxon deflnites are se, seo, thcet, for the three genders severally ; 
and tha in the plural, expressing the or those, as, thcet goed seed, the good 
seed. Thcet is also joined to masculine and feminine nouns, as, thcet wif, 
the woman ; thcet folc, the people. Thee (pronounced they) still obtains 
in Scotland, as, " thae men" for " these men." 



ETYMOLOGY. 43 

accident of place, they may be grammatically referred to the 
class of adjectives. Their import will appear from a few ex- 
amples. 

" That kind Being who is a father to the fatherless, will 
recompense thee for this." 

Here a species is referred to, distinguished by benevolence. 
Of this species one individual is emphatically particularized : 
" That kind being." Who ? his distinctive character follows, 
" is a father to the fatherless." The concluding word this, 
points to something previously described. 

" 'T was idly done 



To tell him of another world ; for wits 
Knew better ; and the only good on earth 
Was pleasure; not to follow that was sin." 

Here the word that refers with emphasis to a thing pre- 
viously specified, namely, pleasure. 

" It is no uncommon thing to find a man who laughs at 
everything sacred, yet is a slave to superstitious fears. I 
would not be that man, were a crown to tempt me." Here 
one indefinitely of a species is mentioned, a man. The sub- 
ject is afterwards limited by description to one of a certain 
character, "who laughs at things sacred, and is a slave to 
superstitious fears." The word that selects and demonstrates 
the person thus described. The word the has nearly the 
same import ; but is less emphatical. It seems to bear the 
same analogy to thai, which a does to one. Hence in many 
cases they may be used indifferently. 

" Happy the man whose cautious feet shun the broad way 
that sinners go." 

Here, " happy that man " would express the same idea. 
The Latins accordingly employed the demonstrative word 
Me ; beatus ille, " happy the man." 

What, then, is the difference between the and that ? To 
ascertain this, let us inquire, in what cases the is employed, 
and whether that can be substituted in its stead. 

The word the is employed, 

1st, When we express an object of eminence or notoriety, 
or the only one of a kind in which we are interested, as, 



44 ETYMOLOGY, 

"the king," when we mean "the king of England." "He 
was concerned in bringing about lution," when we 

mean the revolution in this country. " Virgil copied the 
Grecian bard," or "Homer." "I am going to the 
when I mean " London." In none of il: s n we 

substitute that for the, without laying a particular emphasis 
on the subject, and implying that its character is there de- 
scribed in contradistinction to some other of the same 
species. Thus, " he was concerned in that revolution, which 
was accomplished by the English barons." " He copied 
that Grecian bard, who disputes the claim of antiquity with 
Homer." 

*2dly, We employ it in expressing objects of repe. 
ception, or subjects of previous conversation. I borrow an 
example from Harris. If I see, for the first time, a man with 
a long beard, I say, " there goes a man with a long beard." 
If I see him again, I say, "there goes the man with the 
long beard." "Were the word that substituted for the, the 
same observation would be applicable as in the preceding 
examples. 

3dly, Mr. Harris has said, that the article a is used to ex- 
press objects of primary perception, and the employed to 
denote those only of secondary perception. This opinion is 
controverted by the author of the article Grammar in the 
Encyclopedia Britannica, Ed. 3d. who gives the following 
example to disprove its truth. i; I am in company, and find- 
ing the room warm, I say to the servant, Request the gentle- 
man in the window seat < to whom I am an entire stranger ) 
to draw down the sash." The example is apposite, and is 
sufficient to overturn the hypothesis of Mr. Harris. There 
can be no question but the is frequently employed to denote 
objects of primary prec option; and merely particularize 
some discriminating circumstance, an individual whose 
character, person, or distinctive qualities, were previously 
unknown. In the example now quoted, that may be sol 
tuted for the, if we say, " who is in the window seat." 

ithly, The definite article is used to distinguish the ex- 
plicative from the determinative sense. In the fo inner case 
it is rarely employed: in the latter it should never be omitted, 



ETYMOLOGY. 45 

unless when something still more definite supplies its place. 
" Man, who is born of a woman, is of few days, and full of 
trouble." Here the relative clause is explicative, and not 
restrictive ; all men being " born of a woman ;" the definite 
article therefore is not employed. " The man" would imply 
that all men are not thus born ; and would confine the pre- 
dicating clause to those who are. In the latter sense,* that 
may, without any alteration in the phraseology, be substi- 
tuted for the article ; for the man, and that man, are in this 
instance equivalent. 

5thly, The definite article is often used to denote the 
measure of excess. " The more you study, the more learned 
you will become;" that is, "by how much the more you 
study, by so much the more learned you will become." 
" The wiser, the better ;" " that (by that) wiser, that (by that) 
better." There also that and the may be considered as 
equivalent ; and the Latins accordingly said " eo melior." 

From the preceding examples and observations it must 
appear, that the definite article, and the word that, though 
not strictly synonymous, are words nearly of the same import. 

Their difference seems to be, 

1st, That the article the, like a, must have a substantive 
conjoined with it; whereas that, like one, may have it under- 
stood. Speaking of books, I may select one and say, " give 
me that," but not " give me the ; " " give me one," but not 
" give me a." Here the analogy holds between a and one, 
the and that. 

2dly, As the difference between a and one seems to be, 
that one denotes unity in contradistinction to more, with 
greater emphasis than a, so the distinction in general between 
the and that is, that the latter marks the object more em- 
phatically than the former, being indirectly opposed to this. 
I cannot say, " there goes that man with that long beard," 
without implying a contrast with " this man with this long 
*beard," the word that being always emphatical and dis- 
criminative. 

The opinion here offered, respecting these words, receives 
some corroboration from the following circumstances. 



46 ETYMOLOGY. 

In Latin Me frequently supplies the place of our definite 
article. " Thou art the man." Tn es Me (i&te) homo. 

The le in French is clearly a derivative from Me, of which 
the former syllable il expresses he, and the latter denotes 
that unemphatically, serving as the definite article. From 
the same source also proceed the Italian articles il, lo, la. 

In Hebrew, in like manner, our definite article is expressed 
by the prefix of the pronoun Me ; thus, aretz, terra, " earth ;"* 
hartez, Ma seu hcec terra, " the earth," the letter lie ab- 
breviated from hou, Me, expressing the; — ashrl, haish h , 
beatus Me vlr, " happy the man," or " that man," the he in 
like manner signifying the or that. 

It appears to me, then, that as ae, ane, when not opposed 
to more, and therefore unemphatical, by celerity of pronuncia- 
tion were changed into a, an ; so that, when not opposed to 
this, or when it was unemphatical, was shortened to the. 
Hence, the words termed articles seem to be the name of 
unity, and the demonstrative word that abbreviated. 

Besides the words a, an, the, there are others which may 
be considered as reducible to the same class with these ; such 
as this, that, any, other, same, all, one, none. This and that 
I have already considered. That they are not pronouns is 
evident, for they are never used as the representatives of a 
noun, and always require to be associated with a substantive. 
If ever they appear without this accompaniment, it will in- 
variably be found that the expression is elliptical, some sub- 
stantive or other being necessarily understood. If I say, 
" This was a noble action." This what ? " This action." 
" This is true virtue." This what ? " This practice," " this 
habit," " this temper." To what class of words I conceive 
them to belong has been already mentioned. 

One is a word significant of unity, and cannot, without 
manifest impropriety, be called a pronominal adjective ; 
unless, by an abuse of all language, we be disposed to name 
two, three, four, pronominal adjectives. 

Some is reducible to the same class, denoting an indefinite, 
but, comparatively to many, a small number. 

a inx anxrT. 



ETYMOLOGY. 47 

Many, few, several, are words of the same order, signi- 
ficant of number indefinitely. 

None, or not one, implies the negation of all number, ex- 
clusive even of unity itself. 

Other, which is improperly considered by some as a pro- 
noun, is the Saxon o'Ser coming from oft^e. The Arabic 
olid, the Hebrew had, or ahad, the Saxon o^e, the Teutonic 
odo, and the Swedish udda, with our English word odd, 
seem all to have sprung from the same origin, the etymon ex- 
pressing " one separately," or " one by itself," answering 
nearly to the Latin singulus. The English word odd plainly 
indicates its affinity to these words. We say, " He is an odd 
character," or " singular character." "He had some odd 
ones," that is, " some separate from the rest," not paired, or 
connected with them, " single." a 

" As he in soueraine dignity is odde, 

So will he in loue no parting fellowes have." 

Sir T. Mores Works. 

The same idea of singularity and separation is expressed 
by other ; which is now generally used as a comparative, and 
followed by than. 

Other is sometimes used substantively, and has then a 

a Home Tooke appears to me to have erred in deriving odd from ow'd. 
His words are these : " Odd is the participle owd. Thus, when we are 
counting by couples or pairs, we say, * one pair,' ' two pairs,' &c, and 
' one ow'd,' ' two ow'd,' to make up another pair. It has the same 
meaning when we say, ' an odd man,' ' an odd action,' it still relates to 
pairing; and we mean * without a fellow,' « unmatched.' " Now, I must 
own, this appears to me a very odd explanation ; for, in my apprehen- 
sion, it leads to a conclusion the very reverse of that which the author 
intends. The term odd is applied to the one which stands by itself, and 
not to that which is absent, or ow'd, to complete the pair. If I say, 
" there are three pairs, and an odd one," the word odd refers to the 
single one, over and above the three pairs, and not to the one which is 
wanting ; yet Mr. Tooke refers it to the latter. His explanation seems 
at once unnatural and absurd. Had he substituted, according to his own 
etymology, add for and, saying, " three pairs, add an ow'd one," he must, 
I think, have perceived its inaccuracy. It is the odd and present one y of 
which the singularity is predicated, and not the absent or ow\l one. 



48 ETYMOLOGY. 

plural number, as, " Let others serve whom they will; as for 
me and my house, we will serve the Lord." The word one has 
a plural number when an assemblage of units is expressed, not 
in the aggregate, but individually ; and then it is used as a. 
substantive, as, " I saw a great many fine ones." It is also 
used indefinitely, in the same sense with the French on, as, 
" One would imagine these to be expressions of a man 
blessed with ease." — Atterbury. And, in using it in this 
sense, it may be observed, in passing, that an error is often 
committed by employing the personal pronouns as referring 
to one; thus, " One is apt to exaggerate his own injuries," 
instead of " one's own injuries." It is sometimes, though 
rarely, used as referring to a plural noun. " The Romans 
and the Carthaginians now took the field ; the one ambitious 
of conquest, and the others in self-defence." This mode of 
expression is objectionable. We should rather say, "the 
former," and " the latter." 

Any, an, a, one, seem all to be nearly equivalent words, 
and derived from one origin, I mean from cine, the name of 
unity. Hence a, or an, and any, are frequently synonymous. 
" A considerate man would have acted differently;" that is, 
" any considerate man." Hence also, like one, it is opposed 
to none, as, " Have you a book (any book) which you can 
lend me?" "None; my books are in the country; nor, if 
they were here, have I any (or one) which would suit you." 
From expressing one indefinitely, like a or an, it came, by 
an easy and natural transition, to denote " whatever it be," 
" what you please." " Give me one (ane), any, no matter 
which." In this sense it corresponds to the Latin quivis or 
qnilibet* in affirmative sentences; whereas, in interrogative 
or negative sentences, it corresponds to quisquam, quispiam, 
or ullus. The preceding observations it may be useful to 
recapitulate. 

Nouns are names of genera, and not of individuals ; our 
perceptions are, on the contrary, all individual, not general. 

" Quivis sell quilibet affirmat ; quisquam, quispiam, ullus, aut negat aut 
interrogat," are the words of an ancient grammarian. It is observable 
also, that in Latin, ullus, any, is a diminutive from unus, one; as any in 
English is from ane, the name of unity, as formerly used. 



ETYMOLOGY. 49 

Hence, to denote one or more individuals of a species, nume- 
rals, or words significant of number, were invented. Some 
express a precise number, as one, two, three ; others number 
indefinitely, as some, few, many, several. Our perceptions 
being all individual, and one being the basis of all number, 
the term significant of unity must frequently recur in ex- 
pressing our sentiments. To denote this idea our forefathers 
employed ae, ane. In the progress of language, where unity 
was not to be expressed, as opposed to two or more, the 
terms, thus becoming unemphatical, would naturally be ab- 
breviated into a, an. These latter, therefore, are the off- 
spring of the names of unity, and belong to the class of 
words named cardinal numerals. To what part of speech 
these are reducible (if they can be reduced to any) it is diffi- 
cult to determine. In some languages they have the form of 
adjectives; but, if their meaning be considered, it is clear 
that they have no claim to this appellation, as they express 
no accident, quality, or property whatever. In fact, they 
appear to be a species of words totally different in character 
from any of the parts of speech generally received ; all of 
them, except the first of the series, being abbreviations for 
the name of unity repeated. 

It being necessary not only to express an individual in- 
definitely of any species, but also to specify and select some 
particular one, which at first would probably be done by 
pointing to the object, if in sight, the words this and that, 
hence called demonstratives, were employed ; the one to ex- 
press the nearer, the other the more distant object. From 
one of these proceeded the word the, having the same rela- 
tion to its original as a or an has to the name of unity. 
Hence the words synonymous with this and that, in those 
languages which have no definite article, are frequently em- 
ployed to supply its place. 

The use of these terms being to express any individual 
whatever of a class, and likewise some certain or particular 
object ; we have also the words few, some, many, several, to 
denote a number indefinitely, and the cardinal numerals two, 
three, four, &c, a precise number of individuals. 

E 



50 ETYMOLOGY. 



CHAPTER III. 



OF PRONOUNS. 



Whether we speak of things present, or of things absent, 
of ourselves, or of others, and to whomsoever we address our 
discourse, the repetition of the names of those persons or 
things would not only be tiresome, but also sometimes pro- 
ductive of ambiguity. Besides, the name of the person ad- 
dressed may be unknown to the speaker, and the name of 
the speaker may be unknown to the person addressed. 
Hence appears the utility of pronouns, words, as the etymo- 
logy of the term denotes, supplying the place of nouns. 
They have therefore been denominated by some gram- 
marians, nouns of the second order. 

When the person who addresses speaks of himself, the 
pronoun /, called the pronoun of the first person, is em- 
ployed instead of the name of the speaker, as, " The Lord 
said to Moses, i" (the Lord) am the God of Abraham." 

When the person addressed is the subject of discourse, 
the pronoun thou, called the pronoun of the second person, 
is used instead of his name, as, " Nathan said unto David, 
Thou (David) art the man." 

When neither the person who speaks, nor the person ad- 
dressed, but some other person or thing, is the subject of 
discourse, we employ the pronouns of the third person, 
namely, he, she, it ; as, " When Jesus saw the multitude, he 
(Jesus) had compassion on them." 

I have said that pronouns are employed to prevent the 
tiresome repetition of names. It is not, however, to be 
hence inferred, that even the repetition of the name would, in 
all cases, answer the same purpose, or denote the subject 
with the same precision as the pronoun. For, as there is 



ETYMOLOGY. 51 

hardly any name, strictly speaking, proper or peculiar to one 
individual, the employment of a name, belonging to more 
persons than one, would not so clearly specify or individuate 
the object as the appropriate pronoun. Hence it would 
often be necessary to subjoin to the name some distinctive 
circumstances, to discriminate the person intended from 
others of that name ; or the speaker would be obliged to 
point to the individual if he happened to be present. Nay, 
though the person or subject designed might be thus suf- 
ficiently ascertained, it is easy to see that the phraseology 
would have nothing of that simplicity and energy which ac- 
company the pronoun. If, in the first example, instead of 
saying, " I am the God/' we should say, " The Lord is the 
God ; " or in the second, instead of " Thou art the man," 
" David is the man," the energy of the expression would be 
entirely destroyed. If any person, speaking of himself, 
should distinguish himself from others of the same name, by 
subjoining the necessary discriminating circumstances, so as 
to leave no doubt in the mind of the hearer, it is obvious 
that this phraseology would not only be inelegant, but also 
feeble and unimpressive. To be convinced of the truth of 
this observation, it is only necessary to compare the exani- 
mate, stiff, and frequently obscure diction of a common card, 
with the freedom, perspicuity, and vivacity of a letter. 

Pronouns may be divided into substantive and adjective, 
personal and impersonal, relative and interrogative. The 
personal substantive pronouns are I, thou, he, she. The 
impersonal substantive pronoun is it. 

The personal substantive pronouns have three cases, and 
are thus declined : 

First Person, Masc. and Fern. 





Sing. 


Flur. 


Nom. 


I a 


We 


Gen. 


Mine 


Ours 


Obj. 


Me 


Us. 



a In Anglo-Saxon ic, in German ich, in Greek iya>, in Latin ego. Mr. 
Webb delivered it as his opinion, that the pronoun of the first person was 

E 2 



52 ETYMOLOGY. 



Second Person, Masc. and Fern. 

Sing. Plur 



Nom. 


Thou a 


Ye or ; 


Gen. 


Thine 


Yours 


Obj. 


Thee 

Third Person. 
Masc. 


You. 


Nom. 


He b 


They 


Gen. 


His 


Theirs 


Obj. 


Him 


Them. 



derived from the Hebrew ech or ach, one, used by apocope for achad or 
ahad, he added, " oned," or "united." It is doubtless true, that ech 
occurs in one or two passages for one: see Ezek. xviii. 10, and Ps. xlix. 
8; in which latter passage it is rendered in our translation, brother, and 
by R. Jonah, one ; but we apprehend that this fact will by no means 
justify his conclusion. And as he considered that the pronoun of the first 
person radically denoted one, he imagined that the pronoun of the second 
person came from the numeral duo, du, tu, thu. Now, it must be granted 
that there is an obvious resemblance between ic and ech, and also between 
duo, tu, and thu ; but were we to draw any conclusion from this similar- 
ity, it would be the reverse of that which the author has deduced. It 
seems quite preposterous to suppose, that the necessity for expressing a 
number would present itself, before that of discriminating between the 
pt person speaking and the person addressed. The rude savage could not 

converse with his fellow without some sign of this distinction ; and if 
visible signs (as is probable) would be first adopted, we may reasonably 
presume, on several grounds, that these would soon give place to audible 
expressions. 

The pronoun ic is in Saxon declined thus : 

Sing. Nom. Ic Gen. Min Bat. Me Ace. Me 

Plur. Nom. We Gen. Ure Dat. Us Ace. Us. 



a The pronoun of the second person is thus declined : 

Sing. Nom. Thu Gen. Thin Bat. The Ace. The 

Plur. Nom. Ge (hard) Gen. Eower Bat. and Ace. Eow. 
b The Anglo-Saxon he is declined thus : 

Sing. Nom. He Gen. His Bat. and Ace. Him. 



ETYMOLOGY. 53 

Fern. 





Sing. 


Plur. 


Nom. 


She* 


They 


Gen. 


Hers 


Theirs 


Obj. 


Her 

Third Person. 

Neuter. 
Impersonal. 


Them. 


Nom. 


It b 


They c 


Gen. 


Its 


Theirs 


Obj. 


It 


Them. 



My, thy, our, your, their, being the representatives of 
nouns, have the essential character of pronouns. Thus, 
when Decius says to Cato, " Caesar is well acquainted with 
your virtues," the pronoun is employed as a substitute for 
Cato^s. As they express not only the subject, but also the 
relation of property or possession, they are by some gram- 
marians considered to be the genitives of their respective 
substantive pronouns. In usage, however, they are dis- 
tinguished from the English genitive by their incapacity to 
stand alone. Thus we say, " It is the king's," " It is 
yours j" but we cannot say, " It is your," the presence of a 
noun being necessary to the last expression. They are, 
therefore, more correctly named pronominal adjectives. For 
the purpose of denoting emphatically the relation of posses- 
sion or property, the word own is frequently joined to them, 
as, my own, thy own, our own. And to mark the person 
with emphasis, they are compounded with the word self; in 
Saxon, sylf ; from the Gothic silba, ipse : thus, myself, thy- 
self; ourselves, yourselves. Theirselves is now obsolete, 
themselves being used in its stead. 

The pronouns of the first and second persons are either 

a Sing. Nom. Heo Gen. Hire Bat. Hire. Ace. Hi. 

b This pronoun is from the Anglo-Saxon hyt or hit, " i " or " that." 
c In Anglo-Saxon hi, in Teutonic die. 



54 ETYMOLOGY. 






masculine or feminine. The reason is*says Mr. Harris, be- 
cause the sex of the speaker and of the person addressed is 
generally obvious. This explanation, which has been adopt- 
ed by most grammarians, appears to me unsatisfactory and 
erroneous. Others have said that the pronouns of the first 
and second persons have no distinction of sex, because all 
distinction of this kind is foreign to the intention of the 
speaker, who, when he uses the pronoun /, means the per- 
son who speaks, be it man or woman ; and when he employs 
the pronoun thou, means the person addressed, without any 
regard to the sex of the individual. This matter seems suf- 
ficiently plain. Language, to be useful, must be perspicuous 
and intelligible, exhibiting the subject and its attributes with 
clearness and precision. If it should be asked why the pro- 
noun of the third person has three varieties, Mr. Harris 
would answer, " to mark the sex." If it were inquired 
whence arises the necessity of marking the sex, he would 
answer, and very justly, "in order to ascertain the subject of 
discourse." It is obvious, therefore, that to note the sex is 
not the primary object, and that the principal aim of the 
speaker is to discriminate and mark the subject. The pro- 
nouns of the first and second persons have no variety of form 
significant of sex, because the speaker and the person addressed 
are evident without it. Mr. Harris, therefore, should have said 
that the pronouns in question have no distinction of gender, 
not because the sex of the speaker and of the person addressed, 
but because the persons themselves, are in general obvious, 
without the aid of sexual designation. The intention of the 
speaker is not to denote the sex, but the person spoken of, 
whether male or female ; to ascertain which person, if absent, 
the discrimination of sex is generally necessary. The sex, 
therefore, enters not as an essential, but as an explanatory 
circumstance ; not as the subject of discourse, but to dis- 
tinguish the subject. Where the person is present, and is 
either the speaker or the person addressed, discrimination of 
sex becomes unnecessary, the pronoun itself marking the in- 
dividuals. When the person or subject of discourse is absent, 
the distinction of sex serves frequently to determine the sub- 
ject. Hence the pronoun of the third person has three 



ETYMOLOGY. 55 

varieties, he for the masculine, she for the feminine, and it for 
the neuter. 

The four personal pronouns, /, thou, he, and she, have three 
cases, viz., the nominative or leading case, expressing the 
principal subject, and preceding the verb ; the genitive case, 
whose form and office have been already defined ; and the 
objective, accusative, or following case, (for it has obtained 
these three names,) expressing the object to which the energy 
is directed, or the subject acted upon. This case follows the 
verb. 

Mine, thine, hers, theirs, his, yours, ours, are truly pro- 
nouns in the possessive or genitive case. Johnson has in- 
deed said that my and mine are words precisely synonymous, 
my, according to him, being used before a consonant, and 
mine before a vowel ; as, my sword, mine arm. It is doubt- 
less true that mine and thine are sometimes used as my and 
thy, which are not substantive pronouns, but pronominal ad- 
jectives ; but that they are not precisely synonymous or 
mutually convertible, is obvious ; for my and thy cannot be 
used for mine and thine, though mine and thine, as has been 
observed, may be used for my and thy. Example : " Whose 
book is this ? " I cannot answer, " it is my," but " it is mine." 
We may indeed say "it is my book;" but the addition of the 
substantive is necessary. 

As my and mine, thy and thine, our and ours, your and 
yours, their and theirs, are not mutually convertible, they 
cannot be regarded as synonymous each with its fellow. 

This and that, which have improperly been referred by 
some to the class of pronouns, have been considered already. 
The former makes in the plural these, the latter those. 

The relative pronouns, so called because they directly re- 
late or refer to a substantive preceding, which is therefore 
termed the antecedent, are who, which, that. 

The pronoun who is of the masculine or feminine gender, 
referring to persons, male or female. The pronoun which is 
neuter. Tliat is common to the three genders. 



56 





ETYMOLOGY. 






Sing, and Plur. 


Sing, and Plur. 


Nom. 


Who a 


Which 


Gen. 


Whose 


Whose 


Obj. 


Whom 


Which. 



Lowth and several other grammarians have asserted that 
the pronoun wlticli admits no variation. Numberless ex- 
amples, however, from the best authors might be cited to dis- 
prove this assertion. Shakspeare occasionally uses whose as 
the genitive of which; and, since his time, writers of the 
highest eminence have employed it in the same manner. 

" Of man's first disobedience, and the fruit 
Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste." — Milton. 

" The lights and shades, whose well-accorded strife 
Gives all the strength and colour of our life." — Pope. 

" A true critic is like a dog at a feast, whose thoughts and 
stomach are wholly set on what the guests fling away." — 
Swift. 

This usage is favourable to conciseness, and can very 
seldom create ambiguity. Where obscurity indeed is appre- 
hended, the periphrasis, of which, shoukl^be adopted. I 
have, therefore, given whose as the genitive of which ; not 
only because this usage is sanctioned by classical authority, 
but likewise, because the other form, of which, is frequently 
awkward and inelegant. 

Who is applied to persons, that is, to animals distinguished 
by rationality, or represented as possessing it. 

" The man who has no music in himself." — Shaltspcare. 

The antecedent man, being a person, is followed by ivlio. 

" A stag, who came to drink at a river, seeing his own 
image in the clear stream, said thus to himself." 

Here the stag is represented as possessing reason and 
speech, and therefore the pronoun who is employed. In 
mythological writings in general, such as the Fables of iEsop, 

a In Anglo-Saxon, hwa, hua ; Gen. hwaes ; Dat. hwam ; Ace. hwaene, 
hwone. Also hwile, whence, says Hickes, proceeded which, the letter / 
being elided. 



ETYMOLOGY. 57 

inferior animals are very properly denoted by the personal 
relative. 

Which is applied to things inanimate, and creatures either 
devoid of all indications of rationality, or represented as such. 
" The city, which Romulus built, was called Rome." Here 
which is used, the word city being the antecedent, to which 
it refers. 

" The sloth, which is a creature remarkable for inactivity, 
lives on leaves and the flowers of trees." Here the sloth, an 
animal hardly possessing sensation or life, is expressed by 
which. 

The rule here given for the use of these pronouns is not 
uniformly observed, several good writers occasionally apply- 
ing them indifferently to inferior animals, without any deter- 
minate principle of discrimination. It would be better, how- 
ever, were this rule universally followed ; and if such modes 
of expression as " frequented by that fowl, whom nature has 
taught," were entirely repudiated. 

Priestley, whose doctrine on this subject seems nearly to 
coincide with ours, has even objected to the application of 
the pronoun who to children, because this pronoun conveys 
an idea of persons possessing reason and reflection, of which 
mere children are incapable. He, therefore, disapproves of 
Cadogan's phraseology, when he says, "a child who." 

That is applied indiscriminately to things animate and in- 
animate, and admits no variation. 

The pronouns who, which, and that, are sometimes re- 
solvable into and he, and she, and it. Mr. Harris, indeed, 
has said, that the pronoun qui (who) may be always resolved 
into et ille, a, ud {and he, and she, and it). This opinion, 
however, is not perfectly correct ; for it is thus resolvable in 
those examples only in which the relative clause does not 
limit or modify the meaning of the antecedent. If I say, 
" Man who is born of a woman, is of few days, and full of 
trouble," the relative clause is not restrictive ; I may, there- 
fore, resolve the pronoun, and say, " Man is of few days, and 
he is born of woman." " Light is a body which moves with 
great velocity," is resolvable into " Light is a body, and it 
moves with great velocity." But when the relative clause 



58 ETYMOLOGY. 

limits the meaning of the antecedent, the relative is clearly 
not thus resolvable. " Virgil was the only epic poet, among 
the Romans, who can be compared to Homer." The signi- 
fication of the antecedent is here restricted by the relative 
clause : we cannot, therefore, by resolution, say, " Virgil 
was the only epic poet among the Romans, and he can be 
compared to Homer ;" for the former of these propositions 
is not true, nor is the sentiment, which it conveys, accordant 
with the meaning of the author. 

The pronoun what, if not employed interrogatively, is 
equivalent to that which; and is applicable to inanimate 
things only, as, " I believe what I see," or " that which I 
see." 

What admits no variation. 

The relative pronouns who, which, are often used interro- 
gatively, and are, therefore, in such cases considered as in- 
terrogatives. When thus employed, it is the opinion of the 
author of the British Grammar, that they still retain their 
relative character. " The only difference," says he, " is this, 
that the relative refers to an antecedent and definite subject, 
and the interrogative to something subsequent and un- 
known." The example which he adduces in support of his 
opinion is the following : " Who first seduced them to that 
foul revolt ? " " The very question," says he, " supposes a 
seducer, to which, though unknown, the pronoun who has a 
reference." Answer, " The infernal serpent." He continues. 
" Here, in the answer, we have the subject, which was in- 
definite, ascertained ; so that the who in the interrogation is 
as much a relative as if it had been said originally, without 
any interrogation at all, " It was the infernal serpent who 
seduced them." Others adopt an opinion diametrically op- 
posite, contending that who and wliicli are properly interro- 
gatives, and that even, when used as relatives, they still re- 
tain their interrogative character. This theory a few ex- 
amples will sufficiently illustrate. 

" The man who ? " (which man ?) his character follows, 
" has no music in himself." 

" The city which ? (what city ?) Romulus built was called 
Rome. 






ETYMOLOGY. 59 

" Happy the man whose cautious feet." 
" Happy that man who ? his (whose) cautious feet." 
" Light is a body which ? (body) moves with great 
velocity." 

Of these two theories I have no hesitation in adopting the 
former. My reasons are these. The intention of language 
is to communicate our sentiments ; to express what we think, 
feel, perceive, or desire. Hence its general character is in- 
dicative or assertive. " I believe," " I wish," " I see," are 
affirmative sentences ; and whatever variety of forms the 
phraseology may assume, they are all strictly significant of 
assertion, and all resolvable into the language of affirmation. 
"Go," "teach," "read," are equivalent to, "I desire you to 
go," " to teach," " to read." "Have you finished your task ?" 
means, when the sentiment is fully expressed, " I desire to 
know, whether you have finished your task." Ellipses of 
this kind are natural. They spring from an eagerness to im- 
part to the vehicle of our thoughts a degree of celerity, 
suited to the promptitude with which the mind conceives 
them. Vehemence or passion, impatient of delay, uniformly 
resorts to them. The assertive form of expression I there- 
fore conceive to be the parent whence every other is derived, 
and to which it is reducible. If this be the case, no interro- 
gative, conceived purely as such, can claim so early an origin 
as definite or affirmative terms. Hence we may conclude, 
that who, which, when, where, were at first used as re- 
latives, and came afterwards, by implication, to denote in- 
terrogations. 

Again, we know that the meaning of an expression is fre- 
quently collected, not so much from the strict import of the 
terms, as from the tone or manner in which it is delivered. 
If I say, " he did it," the sentence is affirmative ; yet, by 
the tone of voice or manner of the speaker, this affirmative 
sentence may denote an interrogation. Thus, " he did it?" 
by an elevation of the voice, or the mode of notation, maybe 
rendered equivalent to " did he do it ?" " Who did it" is in 
like manner an affirmative clause ; but it is obvious that this 
form of expression, like the other now adduced, may be like- 
wise employed to note an interrogation, thus, "Who did 



60 ETYMOLOGY. 

it ? " And it is evident, that, if the ellipsis be supplied, the 
sentence would read thus, " I want to know who did it." 
The preceding clause, however, is sufficiently supplied by 
the manner of the speaker. An ellipsis of this kind seems 
to be involved in every interrogation. If I say, " did he do 
it?" it is equivalent to " tell me, if he did it." Accord- 
ingly, we find that the Latins, in such interrogations, em- 
ployed only the latter clause ; for an (whether), which is 
termed an interrogative, is, in fact, nothing but the Greek av y 
synonymous with si (if) among the Latins. " An fecit" did 
he do it ? is therefore strictly equivalent to " si fecit" if he 
did it, the former clause " tell me," being understood, and its 
import supplied by the manner of the speaker, or the mode 
of notation. 

Besides, let any person ask himself what idea he annexes 
to the word who, considered as an interrogative, and I am 
persuaded he will be sensible that he cannot form any distinct 
conception of its import. 

I am inclined therefore to think that interrogatives are 
strictly relatives : and that these relatives, by the aid of voice, 
gesture, or some explanatory circumstance, answer the pur- 
pose of interrogation. 

In using these pronouns interrogatively, it is to be ob- 
served, that who and which are each applied to persons, 
which is not the case when they are employed as relatives. 
This difference, however, is to be observed, that when the 
pronoun which is used interrogatively, and applied to persons, 
it is generally, if not always, understood that the character 
of the individual, who is the object of inquiry, is in presence 
of the inquirer, or is in some degree known. Who is more in- 
definite. If I say, " which is the man?" I mean " who of 
those now before me ? " or of those who have been described ? 
Agreeably to this notion, we say, " which of the two," not 
" who of the two," was guilty of this crime ? 

If I say, "Who is the man that will dare to affirm ?" it 
implies that I am entirely a stranger to him, and that I even 
doubt his existence. " Which is the man ?" not only implies 
his existence, but also that the aggregate of individuals, 
whence the selection is made, is known to me. 



ETYMOLOGY. 61 

What is also used interrogatively, and is employed in in- 
troducing questions, whether the subject be persons or 
things, as, "What man is that?" "What book is this?" 
When no substantive is subjoined, it is then wholly indefi- 
nite, as, " What is man that thou art mindful of him ? " 
When we inquire, therefore, into the character of any person ? 
and not for the individual himself, it is to be remembered 
that we employ this pronoun, and not who or ivhich. 

There seems to be the same difference between who and 
what definite, as between who and which. If I say, " What 
man will dare to affirm this ? " and " Which man will dare ? " 
&c, it is obvious that the former interrogatory is more inde- 
finite than the latter ; the one implying a total ignorance of 
the individual, and some doubt of his existence ; the other, 
that he is one of a number in some degree known to the in- 
quirer. 

When any defining clause is subjoined, either may be used, 
as, "What, or which, man among you, having a hundred 
sheep, and losing one, would not leave the ninety and 
nine ? " 

The pronoun whether is equivalent to "which of the 
two." It is the Teutonic word wether ', bearing the same re- 
lation to wer, "who" or "which," as either does to ein, 
" one," and neither, newether, to nie or nehein, "none." 

This word, though now generally employed or considered 
as a conjunction, is in truth reducible to the class of words 
which we are now examining, and is precisely synonymous 
with liter, tra, trum, of the Latins. "Whether is it easier to 
say*"— Bible. 

Here whether is truly a pronoun, and is the nominative to 
the following verb. 

" Whether is greater, the gold or the temple ? " — Ibid. 

In these examples, whether is precisely the same with 
" which of the two." It seems now to be giving place to 
the word which, as the comparative, when two things are 
compared, is often supplanted by the superlative. Thus we 
often say, when speaking of two, " which is the best," instead 
of " whether is better." The Latins almost uniformly ob- 



62 ETYMOLOGY. 

served the distinction: — " Uter dignior, quis dignissimus ?" 
— Quint. 

The pronoun it is used indefinitely, and applied to persons 
or things. 

Dr. Johnson has objected to the use of this pronoun in 
those examples wherein the pronouns of the first or second 
persons are employed; and Dr. Lowth has censured it 
when referring to a plural number, as in the following 
example : 

" 'T is these, that give the great Atrides spoils." — Pope. 

I concur, however, with the learned author of the Philo- 
sophy of Rhetoric, who regards the objections of these critics 
as, in this instance, of no weight. For when a question is 
asked, the subject of which is totally unknown, there must 
be some indefinite word employed to denote the subject of 
the interrogation. The word which we use for this pur- 
pose is it, as, " Who is it ?" "What is it?" This phraseo- 
logy is established by universal usage, and is therefore un- 
exceptionable. This being the case, there can be no impro- 
priety in repeating in the answer the indefinite term employed 
in the question. We may therefore reply, " It is I," " It is 
he," " It is she." 

Now, if the term be admitted in questions and answers 
where the subject may be either male or female, and of the 
first, second, or third person, it surely is admissible in those 
cases also where the subject is in the plural number. Nay, to 
use in the answer any other word to express the subject than 
that by which it is signified in the question, would be in all 
cases, if not productive of ambiguity, at least less precise. 
" Who is it ? " says a master to his servant, hearing a voice 
in the hall. " It is the gentlemen who called yesterday," 
replies the servant. Who sees not that " they are the gentle- 
men," would be an answer less accordant with the terms of 
the question, and would less clearly show that " the gentle- 
men," and "the subject of inquiry," both being denoted by 
one term, are one and the same ? Had the master known 
that it was the voice of a gentleman, and that there were 
more than one, and had he accordingly said, " Who are 



ETYMOLOGY. 63 

they ? " the answer would have properly been " They are the 
gentlemen." But when the question is " Who is it ?" I ap- 
prehend the only apposite answer is, " It is the gentlemen," 
the identity of the terms (it being repeated) clearly evincing 
an identity of subject in the question and in the answer ; in 
other words, that the subject of the inquiry, and the subject 
of the answer, are one and the same. 

I conclude with observing, that, though I have here con- 
sidered the word that as a pronoun, there can be no question 
that in its import it is precisely the same with the demonstra- 
tive that, which has been already explained. " The house 
that you built is burned," is resolvable thus, " The house is 
burned, you built that." 



64 ETYMOLOGY. 



CHAPTER IV. 



OF THE ADJECTIVE. 



An adjective has been defined by most grammarians to be 
" that part of speech which signifies an accident, quality, or 
property of a thing." This definition appears to me to be 
somewhat defective and incorrect: for the adjective does not 
express the quality simply, but the quality or property, as 
conjoined with a substance ; or, as grammarians have 
termed it, in concrete. Thus, when we say " good man," 
goodness is the name of the quality, and good is the adjective 
expressing that quality, as conjoined with the subject man. 
Accordingly, every adjective is resolvable into the name of 
the thing implied, and any term of reference or conjunction, 
as of y with. Thus " a prudent man" is equivalent to " a man 
with" or " having prudence " or to " a man of prudence." An 
adjective, therefore, is that part of speech which denotes 
any substance or attribute, not by itself, but as conjoined 
with a subject, or pertaining to its character. This con- 
junction is generally marked by changing the termination of 
the simple name of the substantive or attribute, as fool, fool- 
ish, wax, waxen. Sometimes no change is made ; and the 
simple name of the substance, or attribute, is prefixed to the 
name of the subject, as sea fowl, race horse, corn field. In 
writing these, and similar expressions, the conjunction is 
sometimes marked by a hyphen, as sea-foivl, river-fish, wine- 
vessel. 

As every appellative denotes the whole of a genus or 
species, the intention and effect of the adjective is, by limiting 
the generic meaning of the substantive, to specify what part 
of the genus or species is the subject of discourse. If I say 
" man," the term is universal : it embraces the species. If I 
say " a man," the expression is indefinite, being applicable 



ETYMOLOGY. 65 

to any individual of the kind. If I say " a good man," I 
confine the term to an individual distinguished by goodness. 
Here man expresses the substance ; and good the quality 
in concreto. Sometimes, on the contrary, the substantive 
is the general name of the quality or property; and the ad- 
jective modifies or determines its degree, as, wisdom, little 
wisdom. Let us take another example. The word stone is 
applicable to a whole species of substances. If I say round 
stone, I confine the meaning of the substantive to that part 
of the genus which is distinguished by roundness. Here the 
substantive denotes the matter, or substance, in general, and 
the adjective limits its signification, by expressing the form. 
Sometimes the converse takes place, as golden globe. Here 
the substantive is the generic name of a certain figure ; and 
the adjective, by expressing the matter, confines that figure 
to the substance of gold. 

Some grammarians have denominated this part of speech 
by the name of adjective noun ; to others this designation 
appears inadmissible. The latter observe, that neither is the 
adjective the name of anything, nor is it in English variable, 
like the substantive. They allow, that in Greek and Latin, 
the designation in question is, in some degree, justifiable, 
because, though the noun and adjective differ essentially in 
office, in these languages, they agree in form ; but in our lan- 
guage they deem it a singular impropriety a . 

a Mr. Tooke contends, that this part of speech is properly termed ad- 
jective noun, and " that it is altogether as much the name of a thing, as 
the noun substantive." Names and designations necessarily influence our 
conceptions of the things which they represent. It is therefore desirable, 
that in every art or science, not only should no term be employed which 
may convey to the reader or hearer an incorrect conception of the thing 
signified, but that every term should assist him in forming a just idea of 
the object which it expresses. Now, I concur with Mr. Tooke in think- 
ing, that the adjective is by no means a necessary part of speech. I 
agree with him also in opinion, that, in a certain sense, all words are 
nouns or names. But, as this latter doctrine seems directly repugnant 
to the concurrent theories of critics and grammarians, it is necessary to 
explain in what sense the opinion of Mr. Tooke requires to be understood ; 
and in presenting the reader with this explanation, I shall briefly state 
the objections which will naturally offer themselves against the justness 

F 



Ob ETYMOLOGY. 

I have said that the adjective denotes a substance, quality, 
or property, " as pertaining," or in concreto. Now, it is to 

of this theory. " Gold, and brass, and silk, is each of them," says Mr. 
Tooke, "the name of a thing, and denotes a substance. If, then, I say, 
a gold-ring, a brass-tube, a silk-string; here are the substantives adjective 
posita, yet names of things, and denoting substances." It may be con- 
tended, however, that these are not substantives, but adjectives, and are 
the same as golden, brazen, silken. He proceeds: " If again I say, a 
golden ring, a brazen tube, a silken string ; do gold, and brass, and silk, 
cease to be the names of things, and cease to denote substances, because 
instead of coupling them with ring, tube, and string, by a hyphen thus 
(-), I couple them to the same words, by adding the termination en?" 
It may be answered, they do not cease to imply the substances, but they 
are no longer names of those substances. Hard implies hardness, but it 
is not the name of that quality. Atheniensis implies Athena;, but it is 
not the name of the city, any more than belonging to Athens can be 
called its name. He observes : " If it were true, that adjectives were 
not the names of things, there could be no attribution by adjectives ; for 
you cannot attribute nothing." This conclusion may be disputed. An 
adjective may imply a substance, quality, or property, though it is not 
the name of it. Cereus, "waxen," implies cera, "wax;" but it is the 
latter only which is strictly the name of the substance. Pertaining to 
wax, made of wax, are not surely names of the thing itself. Every attri- 
butive, whether verb or adjective, must imply an attribute ; but it is not 
therefore the name of that attribute. Juvenescit, " he waxes young," 
expresses an attribute ; but we should not call juvenescit the name of 
the attribute. 

It may be asked, what is the difference between caput hominis, " a 
man's head," and caput humanum, " a human head?" If hominis, 
" man's," be deemed a noun, why should not humanum, " human," be 
deemed a noun also ? It may be answered, that hominis does, in fact, 
perform the office of an adjective, expressing not only the individual, 
but conjunction also; and that Mr. Wallis assigns to the English geni- 
tive the name of adjective. Besides, does not Mr. Tooke himself main- 
tain, "that case, gender, and number, are no parts of the noun"? and 
does it not hence follow, that the real nouns are not hominis, but homo, — 
not man's, but man ? for such certainly is their form when divested of 
those circumstances which, according to Mr. Tooke, make no part of 
them. If the doctrine, therefore, of the learned author be correct, and if 
the real noun exclude gender, case, and number, as any part of it, neither 
hominis nor humanum, mans nor human, can with consistency be called 
nouns. 

But let Mr. Tooke's argument be applied to the verb, the to prjfj.a, 
which he justly considers as an essential part of speech. " If verbs were 



ETYMOLOGY. 67 

be observed, that substances do not admit degrees of more 
or less, in regard to their essential character. " A wooden 

not the names of things, there could be no attribution by verbs, for we 
cannot attribute nothing." Are we then to call sapit, vivit, legit, names ? 
If so, we have nothing but names ; and to this conclusion Mr. Tooke 
fairly brings the discussion ; for he says, that all words are names. 

Having thus submitted to the reader the doctrine of this sagacious 
critic, with the objections which naturally present themselves, I proceed 
to observe, that the controversy appears to me to be, in a great degree, a 
mere verbal dispute. It is agreed on both sides, that the adjective ex- 
presses a substance, quality, or property; but, while it is affirmed by 
some critics, it is denied by others, that it is the name of the thing sig- 
nified. The metaphysician considers words merely as signs of thought, 
while the grammarian regards chiefly their changes by inflexion : and 
hence arises that perplexity in which the classification of words has been, 
and still continues to be, involved. Now, it is evident that every word 
must be the sign of some sensation, idea, or perception. It must ex- 
press some substance or some attribute : and in this sense all words may 
be regarded as names. Sometimes we have the name of the thing simply, 
as person. Sometimes we have an accessary idea combined with the 
simple sign, as "possession," "conjunction," "action," and so forth, as 
personal, personally, personify. This accessary circumstance, we have 
reason to believe, was originally denoted by a distinct word, significant 
of the idea intended ; and that this word was, in the progress of language, 
abbreviated and incorporated with the primary term, in the form of what 
we now term an affix or prefix. Thus frigus, frigidus, friget, all denote 
the same primary idea, involving the name of that quality, or of that sensa- 
tion, which we term cold. Frigus is the name of the thing simply ; 
frigidus expresses the quality in concreto, or conjunction. Considering, 
therefore, all words as names, it may be regarded as a complex name, 
expressing two distinct ideas, — that of the quality, and that of conjunction. 
Friget (the subject being understood) may be regarded as a name still 
more complex ; involving, first, the name of the quality ; secondly, the 
name of conjunction; thirdly, the sign of affirmation, as either expressed 
by an appropriate name, or constructively implied, equivalent to the 
three words, est cum f rigor e. According, then, to this metaphysical view 
of the subject, we have first nomen simplex, the simple name; secondly, 
nomen adjectivum or nomen duplex, the name of the thing, with that of 
conjunction ; thirdly, nomen affirmativum, the name of the thing affirmed 
to be conjoined. 

The simple question now is, whether all words, not even the verb ex- 
cepted, should be called nouns ; or whether we shall assign them such 
appellations as may indicate the leading circumstances by which they are 
distinguished. The latter appears to me to be the only mode which the 

F 2 



68 ETYMOLOGY. 

table" cannot be more or less wooden. " An iron bar" can- 
not be more or less such. In these cases, the adjective, as I 
have already remarked, by expressing the matter, limits the 
form to one species of substance. The same observation is 
applicable to the converse circumstance, in which the form 
strictly limits the matter, as " triangular board." Here it is 
obvious, that the substance limited to one form by the term 
triangular, cannot be more or less triangular. But this is 
not the case with qualities or properties, which may exist in 
different substances in different degrees. And, as it is some- 
times necessary to express the existence of a quality, as 

grammarian, as the teacher of an art, can successfully adopt. Consider- 
ing the subject in this light, I am inclined to say with Mr. Harris, that 
the adjective, as implying some substance or attribute, not per se, but in 
conjunction, or as pertaining, is more nearly allied to the verb than to the 
noun ; and that though the verb and the adjective may, in common with 
the noun, denote the thing, they cannot strictly be called its name. 
To say that foolish and folly are each names of the same quality, would, 
I apprehend, lead to nothing but perplexity and error. 

It is true, if we are to confine the term noun to the simple name of the 
subject, we shall exclude the genitive singular from all right to this ap- 
pellation ; for it denotes, not the subject simply, but the subject in con- 
junction — the inflexion being equivalent to "belonging to." This indeed 
is an inconsistency which can in no way be removed, unless by adopting 
the opinion of Wallis, who assigns no cases to English nouns, and con- 
siders mans, Icing's, &c, to be adjectives. And were we to adopt Mr. 
Tooke's definition of our adjective, and say, " It is the name of a thing 
which is directed to be joined to another name of a thing," it will follow, 
that king's, mans, are adjectives. In short, if the question be confined 
to the English language, we must, in order to remove all inconsistency, 
either deny the appellation of noun to the adjective, and, with Wallis, 
call the genitive case an adjective ; or we must first call man's, king's, &c, 
adjectives ; secondly, we must term happy, extravagant, mercenary, &c, 
nouns, though they are not names ; and thirdly, we must assign the ap- 
pellation of noun to the verb itself. 

From this view of the subject the reader will perceive that the whole 
controversy depends on the meaning which we annex to the term noun. 
If by this term we denote simply the thing itself, without any accessary 
circumstance, then nothing can be called a noun but the name in its 
simple form. If to the term noun we assign a more extensive signifi- 
cation, as implying not only the thing itself simply and absolutely, but 
also any accessary idea, as conjunction, action, passion, and so forth, 
then it follows, that all words may be termed names. 



ETYMOLOGY. 69 

greater or less in one substance than another, hence arises 
the utility of some form of expression to denote these relative 
degrees of its existence. It is in this case only, that the ter- 
mination of the adjective admits variation; and then it is 
said to be in a state of comparison. 

In all qualities susceptible of intension or remission, the 
number of degrees, from the lowest to the highest, may be 
accounted infinite. Hardness, for example, gravity, magni- 
tude, genius, wisdom, folly, are severally diversified by an 
infinitude of gradations, which it would elude the capacity 
of any language to discriminate. To denote these degrees, 
is, therefore, utterly impracticable, as it is wholly unneces- 
sary. 

In English, as in most other languages, we employ two 
variations : the one to denote simple excess, or a greater de- 
gree of the quality than that which is expressed by the ad- 
jective itself; and the other to denote the greatest excess. 
Thus, if I compare wood with stone, as possessing the 
quality of hardness, I say, " wood is hard," " stone is harder." 
If I compare these with iron, I say, " wood is hard," " stone 
harder," " iron the hardest." Thus, in truth, there are only 
two degrees of comparison, viz. the comparative and the 
superlative, the positive expressing the quality simply and 
absolutely. 

The comparative is formed by adding er to the positive, if 
it end with a consonant ; or the letter r, if it end with 
a vowel ; as, soft, softer ; safe, safer. 

The superlative is formed by adding est, or st } as, soft, 
softest; safe, safest a . 

a The Saxons formed their comparative by er or ere, ar or cere, er, or, 
ur, yr, and their superlative by ast, aste, est, ist, ost, ust, yst. Now ar 
means before ; hence the English words ere and erst. Thus, in Saxon, 
riht wisere means "righteous before," "just before," ov "more than." The 
suffix is equivalent to the Latin prce, and the Hebrew preposition min, 
signifying also before ; the only difference being this, that what is a suffix 
to the Saxon adjective is in Hebrew a prefix to the consequent subject of 
comparison, and that in Latin the preposition following the positive 
stands alone. 

Mr. Bos worth, in his " Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar," a work 
displaying sound philological principles, has remarked, that the Gothic 



70 





ETYMOLOGY. 




e adjectives are 


compared 


irregularly, as, 


Pos. 


Comp. 




Super. 


Good 


Better 




Best 


Bad or Evil 


Worse 




Worst 


Little 


Less 




Least 


Much 


More 




Most 


Many 


More 




Most 


Near 


Nearer 




Nearest or next 


Late 


Later 




Latest or last. 



The comparative degree is frequently expressed by the 
word more, and the superlative by most, as, 

Pos. Comp. Super. 

Hard More hard Most hard. 

Monosyllabic adjectives are generally compared by annex- 
ing r or er, st or est ; adjectives of two or more syllables by 
more and most, as, strong, stronger, strongest ; certain, more 
certain, most certain. 

Dissyllabic adjectives in y form an exception to this rule, 
as happy, happier, happiest. 

Adjectives of two syllables ending in le, after a mute, are 
also excepted, as, able, abler, ablest. 

Euphony seems here to be generally consulted, and the ear 
may be allowed perhaps to furnish the best rule. 

Some form their superlative by adding most to the com- 
parative, as, nether, nethermost; lower, lowermost; under, 
undermost : others by adding most either to the positive or 
comparative, as, hind, hindmost, or hindermost ; up, upmost 
or uppermost. From in, we have inmost and innermost*. 

Besides this definite and direct kind of comparison, there 
is another, which may be termed indefinite or indirect, ex- 
pressed by the intensive words too, very, exceedingly, &c, as, 
too good, very hard, exceedingly great. 

When the word very, or any other of the same import, is 
put before the positive, it is called by some writers the super- 
superlative in itsa bears an obvious resemblance to some of the Greek 
superlatives, as, aptaros, KaXkiaros, (Spadio-Tos. 

Up and in are now used as adverbs and prepositions. 



ETYMOLOGY. 71 

lative of eminence, to distinguish it from the other super- 
lative, which has been already mentioned, and is called the 
superlative of comparison. Thus, very hard is termed the 
superlative of eminence ; most hard, or hardest, the super- 
lative of comparison. 

I have said that the comparative denotes simple excess, 
and the superlative the greatest. It is not, however, to be 
hence inferred, that the comparative may not be employed 
in expressing the same pre-eminence or inferiority with the 
superlative. If I say, " Of all acquirements virtue is the 
most valuable," I may also convey the same sentiment by 
saying, " Virtue is more valuable than every other acquire- 
ment." If it be asked, what then is the difference between 
the comparative and superlative ? I answer, 

1st. That the superlative expresses the absolutely highest 
or lowest degree of the quality, as when we say, " O God 
most high ;" or the greatest or least degree, in relation merely 
to the subjects of comparison, thus expressing a superiority 
of excess above the comparative, as when I say, " In esti- 
mating the worth of these human attainments, learning, 
prudence, and virtue, it cannot be denied that learning is 
valuable, that prudence is more valuable, but that virtue is 
the most valuable." The comparative expresses merely simple 
excess, but never the highest or lowest degree of the quality. 
This distinction is, perhaps, the most precise, and the most 
worthy of attention. 

I observe, however, that the sentiment in the last example 
may be expressed by the comparative, but not simply, or by 
itself; thus, " Learning is valuable, prudence more valuable, 
and virtue more valuable still," the word still implying a con- 
tinued gradation. Were this word suppressed, the sentence 
would imply that prudence and virtue are each more valuable 
than learning, but would assert no superiority of virtue to 
prudence. The same sentiment may likewise be expressed 
by combining the two first, and marking simply the excess 
of the third, thus, " virtue is better than both." 

2dly. When we express the superiority or inferiority of one 
of two things, or of two aggregates, we almost always use 
the comparative. Thus, speaking of Caesar and Cato, I say, 



72 ETYMOLOGY. 

" Cato was the more virtuous, Caesar the more eloquent;" or 
of two brothers, we say, " John was the elder." 

In such cases the superlative is sometimes employed, as, 
" the best of the two," instead of " the better of the two." 
The former phraseology, however, is more consonant to 
established usage, and is in every case to be preferred. 
" Whether is it easier to say, ' take up thy bed and walk,' or 
to say, ' thy sins are forgiven thee ? ' " that is, which of the 
two is " easier," not " easiest," the simple excess of one 
thing above another being here denoted. 

3dly. When we use the superlative, we always compare 
one thing, or an aggregate number of things, with the class 
to which they belong, or to which we refer them ; whereas, 
when we use the comparative, except in the case just men- 
tioned, the things compared either belong, or are conceived 
as belonging, to different classes, being placed in opposition 
to each other. Thus, in comparing Socrates, who was an 
Athenian, with the other Athenians, we say, " Socrates was 
the wisest of the Athenians ; " that is, " of," " out of," or " of 
the class of Athenians." Hence in Latin the superlative 
often takes the preposition ex (out of) to denote that the 
object compared belongs to the order of things with which it 
is compared ; the comparative very rarely. 

Now the same sentiment may be expressed by the com- 
parative ; but then the Athenians and Socrates, though be- 
longing to one species, are conceived as mutually opposed, 
and referred to different places, whereas the superlative refers 
them to one common aggregate. Thus, if we employ the 
comparative, we say, " Socrates was wiser than any other 
Athenian." 

Agreeably to the observation now made, we cannot say, 
" Cicero was more eloquent than the Romans," or " than any 
Roman;" because Cicero was himself a Roman, one of the 
class with which he is compared, and could not therefore be 
more eloquent than himself. As the objects compared be- 
long, therefore, to one class, and are not two individuals, nor 
two aggregates, the comparative cannot be employed, unless 
by placing them in opposition, or referring them to different 
places, as, "Cicero was more eloquent than any other Roman." 



ETYMOLOGY. 73 

Here the word other denotes that opposition, that diversity 
of place or species, which, in all cases but the one already 
mentioned, is essentially implied in the use of the com- 
parative. 

I have observed already, that when the superlative is em- 
ployed, the things compared are referred to one aggregate ; 
and that when the comparative is used, they are contradis- 
tinguished by a different reference. This distinction obtains 
uniformly, unless when we compare only two individuals, or 
two classes, both referred to one aggregate, as " the elder of 
the Catos," " of these two nations (speaking of the Greeks 
and Romans), the latter were the more warlike." In such ex- 
amples as these, the comparative, while it retains its own 
distinctive character, denoting simple excess, partakes also 
of the nature of the superlative, the objects compared being 
referred by the preposition to one and the same aggregate. 
But as the superlative is always followed by of, and the 
comparative, in every case except the one now mentioned, 
followed by than, some writers say, " the eldest of the two," 
" the latter were the most warlike." This phraseology, how- 
ever conformable to the generally distinguished usage of the 
comparative and superlative, is repugnant to the character- 
istic power of these degrees, by which one denotes simple 
excess, while the other heightens or lessens the quality to its 
highest or lowest degree. 

From the preceding remarks will appear the impropriety 
of saying, " Jacob loved Joseph more than all his children." 3 
Joseph being one of his children, the sentiment expressed 
involves an absurdity : it should be " more than all his other 
children." " In the beginning of the 16th century, Spain is 
said to have possessed a thousand merchant ships, a number 
probably far superior to that of any nation in Europe in 
that age." (Robertson's America.) It should be, " that of 
any other nation in Europe : " for, Spain being one of the 
European nations, she could not possess a number superior 

a This phraseology is Hebraistic — " more than all his children " is the 
literal translation of the original, V33/DD prse omnibus filiis, seu, magis 
omnibus filiis suis. 



74 ETYMOLOGY. 

to her own. The comparative required the terms to be con- 
trasted by the word other. 

" Adam 
The comeliest of men since born 
His sons. The fairest of her daughters Eve." — Milton. 

"Adam," the antecedent subject of comparison, is here im- 
properly referred to the aggregate of "men since born." To 
this aggregate he cannot be said to belong, not having been 
" born," nor being reducible to the class of " his cwn sons." 
Eve also is referred to a species of which she was no part. 
In neither of these comparisons can the second term include 
the first ; yet the preposition refers them to one class. Such 
phraseologies as these, though not ungrammatical, involve 
an absurdity, and should therefore be dismissed. 

Adjectives, whose signification does not admit intension or 
remission, cannot be compared. Among these are to be 
reckoned, 1st, All words expressive of figure, as circular, 
square, triangular, perpendicular, straight; for it is ob- 
vious, that if a body or figure be triangular, or square, or 
circular, it cannot be more or less so. It is either circular, or 
not circular ; triangular, or not triangular ; straight, or not 
straight. If the affirmative be the case, gradation from more 
or less, or conversely, is impossible ; if the negative be true, 
then the attributes denoted by these adjectives do not belong 
to it; and therefore the epithets circular, triangular, straight, 
&c, are inapplicable. Hence such expressions as these, 
"place the staff more erect," "make the field more tri- 
angular," are highly improper. We should say, " set the 
staff erect," " make the field triangular." 

2dly. All adjective^, whose signification, in their simple 
form, implies the highest or lowest possible degree, admit not 
comparison, as, chief, supreme^universal, perfect, extreme, 
&c. Hume, speaking of enthusiasm, says (Essays, vol. i. 
p. 72), " it begets the most extreme resolutions." Extreme 
implies the farthest, or the greatest possible, and cannot 
admit intension. 

I am aware that usage may be pleaded in favour of " more 
and most universal, more and most perfect." This usage, 



ETYMOLOGY. 75 

however, is not such as will sanction the former of these 
phraseologies ; for good writers generally avoid it. Besides, 
there is no necessity for resorting to this mode of expression, 
as we have an attributive appropriate to the idea intended : 
thus, instead of saying, "Literature is more universal in 
England than America," we should say, " Literature is more 
general." It is almost unnecessary to observe, that literature 
in England is either universal, or it is not ; if the former be 
true, it cannot be more than universal ; if the latter, the term 
is inapplicable. The word general does not comprise the 
whole ; it admits intension and remission : the adjective 
universal implies totality. A general rule admits exceptions ; 
a universal rule embraces every particular. 

The expression " more perfect " is, in strictness of speech, 
equally exceptionable; usage, however, has given it a 
sanction which we dare hardly controvert. It has been pro- 
posed, indeed, to avoid this and similar improprieties, by 
giving the phraseology a negative, or indirect form. Thus, 
instead of saying, "A time-keeper is a more perfect machine 
than a watch," it has been proposed to say, " A time-keeper 
is a less imperfect machine than a watch." This phraseology 
is logically correct, perfection being predicable of neither the 
one thing nor the other; it might likewise, in many cases, be 
adopted with propriety. In the language of passion, however, 
and in the colourings of imagination, such expressions would 
be exanimate and intolerable. A lover, expatiating with 
rapture on the beauty and perfection of his mistress, would 
hardly call her, " the least imperfect of her sex" 

In all languages, indeed, examples are to be found of ad- 
jectives being compared whose signification admits neither 
intension nor remission. It would be easy to assign several 
reasons for this, did the discussion belong to the province of 
the grammarian a . Suffice it to say, that such phraseologies 
should never be admitted where the language will furnish 
correct, and equally apposite, expressions. 

I observe also, that as those adjectives whose signification 

a See a valuable little volume on English Grammar, by Mr. Grant. 
The " Institutes of Latin Grammar," by the same author, we would re- 
commend to the attention of every classical student. 



76 ETYMOLOGY. 

cannot be heightened or lessened admit not comparison, so, 
for the same reason, they exclude all intensive words. The 
expressions, so universal, so extreme, and such like, are 
therefore improper. The former is indeed common enough ; 
but it is easy to see, as it has been already remarked, that 
whatever is universal cannot be increased or diminished ; and 
that what is less than universal, cannot be characterized by 
that epithet. The phrase so universal implies a gradation 
in universality, and that something is less so than an another ; 
which is evidently impossible. 

It has been questioned, whether 'prior, superior, ulterior, 
exterior, and several others, which have the form of the 
Latin comparative, should be deemed comparatives. I am 
inclined to think, they ought not, for these reasons; 1st, 
They have not the form of the English comparative ; 2dly, 
They are never followed by than, which uniformly ac- 
companies the English comparative, when the subjects are 
opposed to each other, or referred to different classes ; 3dly, 
It is not to be conceived, that every adjective, which implies 
comparison, is therefore a comparative or superlative, other- 
wise preferable (better than), previous (prior to), might be 
deemed comparatives; 4thly, Many of these have truly a 
positive meaning, not implying an excess of the quality, but 
merely the quality, as opposed to its contrary. The interior 
means simply the inside, as opposed to the exterior or out- 
side; the anterior, "the one before," opposed to posterior, 
" the one behind." 

I dismiss this article with observing, that the signification 
of the positive is sometimes lessened by the termination ish; 
as, white, whitish ; black, blackish. Johnson remarks, that 
the adjective in this form may be considered as in a state of 
comparison ; it may properly be called a diminutive. 



ETYMOLOGY. 77 

CHAPTER V. 

OF THE VERB. 

A verb has been denned to be " that part of speech which 
signifies to be, to do, or to suffer;" or more correctly, " that 
part of speech which predicates some action, passion, or 
state of its subject, 1 ' as " I strike," " I am wounded," " I 
stand." Its essence consists in affirmation, and by this 
property it is distinguished from every other part of speech. 
The adjective expresses an accident, quality, or property of 
a thing in concreto ; that is, when joined to the name of a 
substance, it expresses that substance, as accompanied by 
some attribute : in other words, it limits a generic name, 
confining it to that part of the kind, which possesses the 
character, which the attributive specifies ; but it afhrms 
nothing. Thus, if we say, " a wise man" which is equiva- 
lent to " a man with," or " having wisdom," there is no affir- 
mation ; an individual is singled from a species, under the 
character of wisdom, but nothing is asserted of this indi- 
vidual. , If we say " the man is wise," there is something- 
affirmed of the man, and the affirmation is expressed by is. 
If the attribute and the assertion be combined in the expres- 
sion, as in Latin vir sapit, it is obvious that the essence of 
the verb consists, not in denoting the attribute wisdom, but 
in affirming that quality, as belonging to the subject; for, if 
you cancel the assertion, the verb is immediately converted 
into an adjective, and the expression becomes vir sapiens, a 
wise man. 

The simplest of all verbs is that which the Greeks call a 
verb of existence, namely, the verb to be. This verb fre- 
quently denotes pure affirmation, as " God is good," where 
the verb, or copula, as it has been termed, serves to predi- 
cate of the Deity, the attribute denoted by the folio wing- 
word. Hence, as it expresses mere affirmation, the Latins 
call it a substantive verb, in contradistinction to those verbs 
which, with an attribute, denote assertion, and were called by 
some grammarians adjective verbs. 



78 ETYMOLOGY. 

Sometimes it predicates pure or absolute existence, as 
" God is," that is, " God exists." In the following example 
it occurs in both senses. " We believe that thou art, and 
that thou art the rewarder of them who diligently seek thee." 

As nouns denote the subjects of our discourse, so verbs 
predicate their accidents, or properties. The former are the 
names of things, the latter what we say concerning them. 
These two, therefore, must be the only essential parts of 
speech ; for to mental communication nothing else can be 
indispensably requisite, than to name the subject of our 
thoughts, and to express our sentiments of its attributes or 
properties. And as the verb essentially expresses affirma- 
tion, without which there could be no communication of 
sentiment, it has been hence considered as the principal part 
of speech, and was therefore called, by the ancient gram- 
marians, verb, or the word, by way of eminence. The noun, 
however, is unquestionably of earlier origin. To assign 
names to surrounding objects would be a matter of the first 
necessity : the next step would be to express their most 
common actions, or states of being. This indeed is the 
order of nature — the progress of intellect. 

Mr. Tooke observes that, " the verb does not imply any 
assertion, and that no single word can." " Till one single 
thing," says he, " can be found to be a couple, one single 
word cannot make an assertion or affirmation : for there is 
joining in that operation, and there can be no junction of 
one thing." This theory he illustrates by the tense ibo, 
which he resolves thus : 



English 


Hi a 


Wol 


Ich 


Latin 


I 


■ Vol 





Greek 


I 


Bovx 


Eu. 



The first of each triad are the simple verbs, equivalent to go. 
The second are the verbs Wol, Vol, Bojm, denoting will. 
The third are the pronouns of the first person. Whatever 
opinion may be formed respecting the truth of this analysis, 
its ingenuity will not be questioned. There are two objec- 
tions, however, by which its justness may possibly be con- 

a I, M, hie, "to go," he considers to be from 'I-epai, the Greek verb ; 
and hence to be derived the Latin verb I-re, " to go," " to hie." 



ETYMOLOGY. 79 

troverted. The first is, if the personal pronouns are con- 
tained, as Mr. Tooke says, in the Greek and Latin ter- 
minations of the three persons of their verbs, why is the 
pronoun repeated with the verb ? If the o in volo be an ab- 
breviated suffix for ego, why do we redundantly say ego volo ? 
Now, in answer to this objection, it might be observed, were 
we disposed to indulge in mere hypothesis, that the involu- 
tion of the pronoun may have eluded the attention of the 
Latins ; or, if this explanation should be deemed too im- 
probable, it may be supposed that usage, against whose 
decree there is no appeal, may have established the repetition 
of the pronoun at the expense of strict propriety. One 
thing particularly deserves attention, that the pronoun was 
seldom or never used, unless in cases where emphasis was im- 
plied, or an antithesis of persons was to be strongly marked. 
But without resorting to conjectures, which may be deemed 
vague and unsatisfactory, we may appeal to a fact which is 
decisive of the point in question. I have already observed, 
that in the Hebrew language we can distinctly mark the 
pronouns suffixed to the verb ; yet we find the Hebrew 
writers repeating the pronouns even in cases where no em- 
phasis is intended. Thus, in Gen. xlviii. 22, Ve-ani nathatti, 
" and I have given ;" Job xix. 25, Ve-ani iadakgti, "and I 
knew;" Deut. ix. 2, attah iadahghta, ve-atta shamahgh ta, 
'thou knowest, and thou hast heard." In these examples, 
the pronoun is both incorporated with the verb and repeated 
by itself. Whatever may be the abstract propriety of this 
phraseology, its existence in Hebrew is sufficient to obviate 
the objection proposed. 

Again, it may be urged, if the pronoun ego be suffixed to 
the verb, why do not all the tenses in the first person singular 
end in o ? This second objection may also be partly, if not 
entirely, removed. The Latin language appears to be a com- 
mixture of Greek and one of the northern languages. This 
commixture will account for the first person singular some- 
times ending in o, in imitation of the Greeks, and at other 
times in m, in imitation of the Celts. The present tense of 
the Gaelic, a dialect of the Celtic, proceeds thus : sgriohh- 
aim, " I write," sgriobh-air, sgriobh-aidh, sgriobhramoid, 



80 ETYMOLOGY. 

sgriobh-aoidhesi, sgriobh-aidsion. Here, as Whiter observes, 
we have something resembling the Latin verb scribo : and it 
is to be remarked that the first person singular ends in m, 
which the Romans most probably adopted as one of their 
verbal terminations. And could we prosecute the inquiry, 
and investigate the structure of the Greek and Celtic tenses 
themselves, we should doubtless find, that they involve, along 
with the radical word, one or more terms expressing the ac- 
cessary ideas of action, passion, state, person, time, and so 
forth. The same theory, we are persuaded, may be applied 
to all languages, in which the tenses are formed by variety 
of termination. 

Nothing, I conceive, can be more evident, than that the 
inflexions of nouns and verbs, how inexplicable soever they 
may now prove, were not originally the result of systematic 
art, but were separate terms significant of the circumstances 
intended, and afterwards, by celerity of pronunciation, 
coalesced with the words of which they now form the termi- 
nations. 

It has been observed, that the essence of the verb consists 
in affirmation. This theory, I have remarked, is controverted 
by Mr. Tooke. It must be obvious, however, from the 
preceding observations, that the difference between the 
opinion of this eminent philologist, and that which is here 
delivered, is more apparent than real. For Mr. Tooke will 
not deny, that an affirmation is implied in ibo ; he merely 
observes, that every assertion requires " a couple of terms." 
Now it is of little moment to the point in question whether 
the two terms be incorporated in one, as in lego, or remain 
separate, as " I read." In either case the verb affirms some- 
thing of its nominative, whether that nominative appear in a 
simple or in a compound state. Sometimes the affirmation is 
expressed by a separate and appropriate sign, as Me est 
dives, " he is rich :" and the verb of existence {to be) is sup- 
posed, by several critics and philologists, to have been coeval 
with the earliest infancy of language. In English, the affir- 
mation, and also the action, are frequently denoted, simply 
by the junction of the name of the attribute with the nomi- 
native of the subject, whether noun or pronoun. Thus, if we 



ETYMOLOGY. 81 

say, "my will," "the children's will," there is no affirmation 
implied, and the term will is considered as a mere name. 
But if we say, "I will," "the children will," it becomes in- 
vested with a different character, and affirms the volition to 
belong to the subject. Thus also, "the hero's might," "the 
hero might," " my ken " (my knowledge or ability), " I ken," 
I can, or I am able ; "my love," "I love." Mr. Tooke ob- 
serves, that when we say " I love," there is an ellipsis of the 
word do. This appears to me a probable opinion, though 
not entirely unobjectionable. For though we find the 
auxiliary more frequently used in old English than in 
modern compositions, yet it does not occur so frequently as, 
according to this hypothesis, we should naturally expect. 
Mr. Tooke indeed admits the fact; but observes, that 
Chaucer had less occasion to use it, because in his time the 
distinguishing terminations of the verb still remained, though 
they were not constantly employed. Now I find, as Mr. 
Tyrwhitt remarks, that Chaucer seldom uses the word do as 
an auxiliary, even in those cases where the verb and the 
noun are identical. This circumstance might lead us to infer 
that the English present was derived from the Saxon, by 
dropping the termination, as ic hifige, I love; the affirmation 
and the action being sufficiently obvious from the construc- 
tion, and that it was originally optional to say either "I 
love," or " I do love." Be that as it may, the assertion ex- 
pressed by " I do," equivalent to " I act," appears clearly to 
be signified by the junction of the nominative pronoun with 
the sign of action. Whether a note of affirmation was at 
first separately employed, and afterwards involved in the 
verbal termination, or whether the affirmation be merely in- 
ferred and not signified, this is certain, that it is by the verb, 
and the verb only, that we can express affirmation. 

As every subject of discourse must be spoken of as either 
doing or suffering something, either acting or acted upon ; or 
as neither doing nor suffering; hence verbs have been divided 
by all grammarians into active, passive, and neuter. 

The verb active denotes that the subject of discourse is 
doing something, as, I write ; the passive verb, that the sub- 
ject suffers, or is acted upon, as, the book is burned; and the 

G 



82 ETYMOLOGY. 






neuter denotes neither the one nor the other, but expresses 
merely the state, posture, or condition of the subject, as un- 
affected by anything else, as, i" sit, I sleep, I stand. 

Action, energy, or motion may either be confined to the 
agent, or pass from him to something extrinsic. Hence active 
verbs have been divided into transitive and intransitive. An 
active transitive verb denotes that kind of action by which the 
agent affects something foreign to himself, or which passes from 
the agent to something without him, as, to beat a drum, to whip 
a horse, to kill a dog. Beat, whip, kill, are active transitive 
verbs ; and it is the characteristic of these verbs that they 
admit a noun after them, denoting the subject of the action. 

An active intransitive verb denotes that species of action 
or energy, which passes not from the agent to anything else ; 
that is, it expresses what has been termed immanent energy. 
Hence an intransitive verb does not admit a noun after it, 
there being no extrinsic subject or object affected by the 
action. Thus, / run, I walk, the horse gallops, are examples 
of active intransitive verbs a . 

Webster, in his Dissertations on the English Language, 
delivers it as his opinion, that the division of verbs into 
active, passive, and neuter is incorrect ; and that the only 
accurate distribution is into transitive and intransitive. * Is 
not a man," says he, " passive in hearing ? yet hearing is 
called an active verb." 

It is doubtless true, that to hear, and many other verbs, 
commonly called active, denote chiefly, perhaps, the effect of 
an extrinsic or foreign act. But whether we view the matter 
as a question either in metaphysics or in grammar, we shall 
perceive but little impropriety in adopting the common dis- 
tinction. For, though the verb to hear denotes, perhaps, 
chiefly, that a certain impression is made on the mind 
through the auditory organ, yet even here the mind is not 
entirely passive, as, were this the place for such a discussion, 
it would be easy to prove. / see, I hear, I feel, I perceive, 
denote not only the sensation in which we are passive, but 

a Intransitive verbs sometimes are used transitively, as, when we say, 
" to walk the horse," " to dance the child." They also admit a noun of 
their own signification, as, " to run a race." 



ETYMOLOGY. 83 

also a perception, to which the consent or activity of the 
mind is unquestionably essential. Hence these verbs have, 
in all languages, been denominated active. But if the term 
transitive be the only correct name, it may be asked, why 
does Mr. Webster call this verb by that appellation ? He 
would answer, I doubt not, " because something passes from 
the agent to something else." What, then, is that some- 
thing which passes ? I am afraid Mr. Webster would have 
difficulty in answering this question, so as to justify the term 
transitive, without admitting the verb to be active. For, if 
it be not an act, an energy, or some operation of the mind, 
what is it, or how can it pass from one to another ? The 
truth is, this objection of Mr. Webster to the term active in 
such cases, is founded neither on metaphysical nor gramma- 
tical principles ; for by an active transitive verb is meant, that 
which admits a noun as its regimen ; and, for the purposes 
of grammar, this name is sufficiently correct. If the point in 
question be metaphysically considered, it would be easy to 
demonstrate that, though in sensation the mind be passive, in 
perception it is active. 

I would here observe, in passing, that there are many verbs 
neuter and intransitive, which, followed by a preposition, may 
be truly considered as active transitive verbs. These have 
been denominated, by the learned Dr. Campbell, compound 
active verbs. To laugh, for example, is a neuter verb; it 
cannot therefore admit a passive voice, as, " / am laughed." 
To laugh at may be considered as an active transitive verb ; 
jjjgr it not only admits an objective case after it in the active 
voice, but is likewise construed as a passive verb, as, " / am 
laughed at." Here an obvious analogy obtains between 
these two and the verbs rideo, derideo, in Latin ; the former 
of which is a neuter, and the latter an active verb. Nor, as 
the same ingenious writer observes, does it matter whether 
the preposition be prefixed to the simple verb, as in Latin, in 
order to form the active verb, or be put after, and detached, 
as is the case in English. The only grammatical criterion 
in our language between an active and a neuter verb is this : 
if the verb admits an objective case after it, either with or 
without a preposition, to express the subject or object of the 

G 2 



84 ETYMOLOGY. 

energy, the verb may be grammatically considered as a com- 
pound active verb ; for thus construed it has a passive voice. 
If the verb does not thus admit an objective case, it must be 
considered grammatically as neuter or intransitive, and has 
no passive voice. To smile is a neuter verb; it cannot, 
therefore, be followed by an objective case, nor be construed 
as a passive verb. We cannot say, she smiled him, or he 
was smiled. To smile on, according to the principle now 
proposed, is a compound active verb ; we therefore say, she 
smiled on him. He was smiled on by Fortune in every 
undertaking \ 

As all things exist in time, and whatever is predicable of 
any subject must be predicated as either past, present, or 
future, every action, energy, or state of being, coming under 
one or other of these predicaments, hence arises the utility of 
tenses, to express the times, or relative order of their exist- 
ence. In regard to the number of these tenses b , necessary 
to render a language complete, grammarians have been some- 
what divided in opinion. 

In our language we have two simple tenses, the present 
and the preterperfect c . The latter is generally formed by 

a Conformably to general opinion I here consider the English language 
as having a passive voice. How far this opinion is well founded shall be 
the subject of future inquiry. 

b Mr. Bosworth seems to think, that the word tense is derived from 
the Latin tensus, " used to denote that extension or inflexion of the word, 
by which difference in time is implied, or difference in action is signified." 
I am rather inclined to consider it as derived from the French terns or 
temps, and that from tempus. * 

c " Some," says Dr. Beattie, " will not allow anything to be a tense, 
but what, in one inflected word, expresses an affirmation with time ; for, 
that those parts of the verb are not properly called tenses, which assume 
that appearance, by means of auxiliary words. At this rate, in English, 
we should have two tenses only, the present and the past in the active 
verb, and in the passive no tenses at all. But this is a needless nicety ; 
and, if adopted, would introduce confusion into the grammatical art. If 
amaveram be a tense, why should not amatus fueram? If / heard be a 
tense, I did hear, I have heard, and i" shall hear, must be equally entitled 
to that appellation." 

How simplicity can introduce confusion I am unable to comprehend, 
unless we are to affirm that the introduction of Greek and Latin names, 



ETYMOLOGY. 85 

adding d or ed to the present, as love, loved ; fear, feared. 
That the suffix here is a contraction for did, as Mr. Tooke 

to express nonentities in our language, is necessary to illustrate the gram- 
mar, and simplify the study of the language to the English scholar. But 
the author's theory seems at variance with itself. He admits, that " we 
have no cases in English, except the addition of s in the genitive;" whence 
we may infer, that he considers inflexion as essential to a case. Now, if 
those only be cases, which are formed by inflexion, those only should, 
grammatically, be deemed tenses, which are formed in the same manner. 
When he asks, therefore, if amaveram be a tense, why should not araatus 
faeram be a tense also? the answer on his own principles is sufficiently 
obvious, namely, because the one is formed by inflexion, the other by 
combination. And, I would ask, if kings be a genitive case, why, ac- 
cording to this theory, is not of a king entitled to the same appellation ? 
I apprehend the answer he must give, consistently with his opinion re- 
specting cases, will sufficiently explain why amaveram, and / heard, are 
tenses, while amatus faeram, and Iliad heard, are not. 

Nay, further, if it be needless nicety to admit those only as tenses, 
which are formed by inflexion, is it not equally a needless nicety to admit 
those cases only, which are formed by varying the termination ? And if 
confusion be introduced by denying / had heard to be a tense, why does 
not the learned author simplify the doctrine of English nouns, by giving 
them six cases, a king, of a king, to or for a king, a king, O king, vjith, 
from, in, or by a king? This surely would be to perplex, not to simplify. 
In short, the inconsistency of those grammarians, who deny that to be a 
case, which is not formed by inflexion, yet would load us with moods 
and tenses, not formed by change of termination, is so palpable, as to 
require neither illustration nor argument to expose it. If these authors 
would admit, that we have as many cases in English, as there exists rela- 
tions expressed by prepositions, then, indeed, though they might over- 
whelm us with the number, we should at least acknowledge the consist- 
ency of their theory. But to adopt the principle of inflexion in one case, 
and reject it in another, precisely parallel, involves an inconsistency which 
must excite amazement. Nil fait sic unquam impar sibi. Why do not 
these gentlemen favour us with a dual number, with a middle voice, and 
with an optative mood? Nay, as they are so fond of tenses, as to lament 
that we rob them of all but two, why do they not enrich us with a first 
and second aorist, and a paulo post future? and, if this should not suffice, 
they will find in Hebrew a rich supply of verbal forms. We should then 
have kal and niphal, pihhel and pyhhal, hiphhil and hophhal, hithpahhel 
and hothpahhel, and numerous other species and designations. What a 
wonderful acquisition this would be to our stock of moods, tenses, and 
voices ! 

One of these grammarians, indeed, reverencing the old maxim est modus 
in rebus, observes, that " it is necessary to set bounds to this business, so 



86 ETYMOLOGY. 

supposes, I can easily imagine ; thus, /ear, fear-did, /eared, 
or did /ear ; but the question returns, whence comes the 

as not to occasion obscurity and perplexity, when we mean to be simple 
and perspicuous." This is so far good; because, though it vindicates 
the impropriety, it modestly would confine it within decent bounds. But 
surely it cannot be necessary to remind this writer, that when the bound- 
ary between right and wrong, propriety and impropriety, is once passed, 
it is extremely difficult to prescribe limits to the transgression ; and that 
arbitrary distinctions, resting on no other foundation than prejudice or 
fashion, must ever be vague, questionable, and capricious. These are 
truths of which, I am persuaded, the author to whom I allude needs not 
to be reminded. But it may be necessary to impress on his attention 
another truth equally incontestable, that no authority, how respectable 
soever, can sanction inconsistency ; and that great names, though they 
may be honoured by ignorance and credulity with the most obsequious 
homage, will never pass with the intelligent reader, either for demonstra- 
tion or for argument. This author, in defence of his theory of cases and 
tenses, observes, " that the proper form of a tense, in the Greek and Latin 
languages, is certainly that which it has in the grammars of these lan- 
guages." On what evidence is this assumption founded? Here is exhi- 
bited a petitio principii, too palpable to escape the detection of the most 
inattentive reader. He proceeds: " But in the Greek and Latin gram- 
mars we uniformly find that some of the tenses are formed by variations 
of the principal verb, and others by the addition of helping verbs." It is 
answered that the admission of these forms in Greek and Latin grammars 
is a question of mere expediency, and nowise affects the doctrine for 
which we contend, any more than the admission of six cases in all the 
Latin declensions affects the doctrine of cases ; though in no one declen- 
sion have all the cases dissimilar terminations. This position it would be 
easy to demonstrate : it would be easy likewise to show why, notwith- 
standing this occasional identity of termination, six cases are admitted in 
all the declensions ; but the subject is foreign to our present purpose. 
It is important, however, to observe, what has escaped the notice of the 
author, that the principle, on which the admission just mentioned maybe 
expedient in a Latin grammar, has no existence whatever in the English 
language. 

" It is, therefore," he continues, " indisputable, that the principal, or 
the participle, and an auxiliary, constitute a regular tense in the Greek 
and Latin languages." This, as I have remarked, is a palpable petitio 
principii. It is to say, that because amatus fueram is a tense, therefore 
" I had been loved" is. a tense also. The author forgets that the pre- 
mises must be true, to render the conclusion legitimate. He forgets, that 
a circular argument is a mere sophism, because it assumes as true what 
it is intended to prove. Whether amatus fueram be or be not a tense, is 
the very point in question ; and so far am I from admitting the affirmative 



ETYMOLOGY. 87 

termination eel in doed y from which did itself is contracted ? 
This query seems to have escaped the attention of the learned 
author 21 . 

as unquestionable, that I contend, it has no more claim to the designation 
of tense, than eaofiai rervffxas — no more claim than amandum est mihi, 
amari oportet, or amandus sum, have to be called moods. Here I must 
request the reader to bear in mind the necessary distinction between the 
grammar of a language and its capacity of expression. 

In answer to the objection of inconsistency, in admitting tenses where 
there is no inflexion, yet rejecting cases where there is no change of 
termination, the author says, " that such a mode of declension cannot 
apply to our language." But why can it not apply ? Why not give as 
English cases, to a king, of a king, from a king, with a king, by a king, 
at a king, about a king, &c. &c? The mode is certainly applicable, what- 
ever may be the consequences of that application. A case surely is as 
easily formed by a noun and preposition, as a tense by a participle and 
auxiliary. But the author observes, " the English language would then 
have a much greater number of cases than the Greek and Latin lan- 
guages." And why not ? Is the number of cases in English, or any 
other language, to be limited by the number in Greek or Latin ? or does 
the author mean to say, that there is any peculiar propriety in the num- 
ber five or six? The author, to be consistent with himself, ought to ac- 
knowledge as many cases as there are prepositions to be found in the 
English language. This, it may be said, would encumber our grammar, 
and embarrass the learner. This is, indeed, an argument against the 
expediency of the application, but not against the practicability of the 
principle in question. Besides, it may be asked, why does the author 
confine his love of simplification to cases ? Why not extend it to tenses 
also ? Why maintain, that inflexion only makes a case, and that a tense 
is formed without inflexion ? Why dismiss one encumbrance, and admit 
another ? 

The author observes, that " from grammarians, who form their ideas 
and make their decisions respecting this part of grammar, on the prin- 



* Mr. Gilchrist, in his " Philosophic Etymology," represents the ter- 
minations ath, eth, ad, ed, et, en, an, as conjunctives, equivalent to the 
sign +, denoting add, or join (see p. 162). In another part of the same 
work, he considers did to be do doubled, as dedi from the Latin do, which 
he believes to be the very same word with our do. Repetition, he ob- 
serves, is a mode of expressing complete action. Hence we have do, 
eo-ed, dede, did, in English. This explanation is ingenious, and furnishes 
a probable account of the origin of the word did, which he remarks was 
formerly spelled dede. 



88 ETYMOLOGY. 

Actions and states of being may be predicated as either 
certain or contingent, free or necessary, possible or impossi- 

ciples and construction of languages, which in these points do not suit 
the peculiar nature of our own, but differ considerably from it, we may 
naturally expect grammatical schemes that are neither perspicuous nor 
consistent, and which will tend more to perplex than inform the learner." 
Had I been reprehending the author's own practice, I should have em- 
ployed nearly the same language. How these observations, certainly 
judicious and correct, can be reconciled with the doctrine of the writer 
himself, I am utterly at a loss to conceive. His ideas of consistency and 
simplicity are to me incomprehensible. He rejects prepositional cases 
for the sake of simplicity, and he admits various moods and tenses, 
equally foreign to the genius of our language, in order to avoid per- 
plexity. Surely this is not a " consistent scheme." Nay, he tells us, 
" that on the principle of imitating other languages in names and forms 
(I beseech the reader to mark the words), without a correspondence in 
nature and idiom, we might adopt a number of declensions, as well as a 
variety of cases, for English substantives : but," he adds, " this variety 
does not at all correspond with the idiom of our language." After this 
observation, argument surely becomes unnecessary. 

I have here, the reader will perceive, assailed the author's doctrine 
merely on the ground of inconsistency. It is liable, however, to objec- 
tions of a more serious nature ; and were I not apprehensive that I have 
already exhausted the patience of the reader, I should now proceed to 
state these objections. There is one observation, however, which I feel 
it necessary to make. The author remarks, that to take the tenses as 
they are commonly received, and endeavour to ascertain their nature and 
their differences, " is a much more useful exercise, as well as a more 
proper, for a work of this kind, than to raise, as might be easily raised, 
new theories on the subject." If the author by this intends to insinuate 
that our doctrine is new, he errs egregiously. For Wallis, one of the 
oldest, and certainly one of the best of our English grammarians, duly 
attentive to the simplicity of that language whose grammar he was ex- 
hibiting, assigned only two tenses to the English verb. He says, Nos 
duo tantum habemus tempora Prcesens et Prceteritum ; and on this sim- 
ple principle his explanation of the verb proceeds. In the preface to his 
grammar, he censures his few predecessors for violating the simplicity of 
the English language, by the introduction of names and rules foreign to 
the English idiom. Cur hujusmodi casuum, genentm, modorum, tempo- 
rumque fictam et ineptam plane congeriem introducamus citra omnem ne- 
cessitatem, aut in ipsa lingua fundamentum. nulla ratio suadet. And so 
little was he aware that the introduction of technical names for things 
which have no existence, facilitates the acquisition of any art or science, 
that he affirms it in regard to the subject before us to be the cause of 



ETYMOLOGY. 89 

ble, obligatory or optional ; in short, as they may take place 
in a variety of ways, they may be spoken of, as diversified in 
their modes of production. Hence arises another accident 
of verbs, called a mood, expressing the mode or manner of 
existence. These modes are, in some languages, partly ex- 
pressed by inflexions, partly by auxiliary verbs, or words 
significant of the model diversity. In English there is only 
one mood, namely, the indicative. The Greeks and Romans 
expressed by inflections the most common modes of action 
or existence, as conditionally, power, contingency, certainty, 
liberty, and duty. In our language they are denoted by 
auxiliary verbs. 

The English verb has only one voice, namely, the active. 
Dr. Lowth, and most other grammarians, have assigned it 
two voices, active and passive. Lowth has, in this instance, 
not only violated the simplicity of our language, but has also 
advanced an opinion inconsistent with his own principles. 
For, if he has justly excluded from the number of cases in 
nouns, and moods in verbs, those which are not formed by 
inflexion, but by the addition of prepositions and auxiliary 
verbs, there is equal reason for rejecting a passive voice, if it 
be not formed by variety of termination. Were I to ask him 
why he denies from a king to be an ablative case, or I may 
love to be the potential mood, he would answer, and very 
truly, that those only can be justly regarded as cases or 
moods which, by a different form of the noun or verb, express 
a different relation or a different mode of existence. If this 
answer be satisfactory, there can be no good reason for as- 
signing to our language a passive voice, when that voice is 
formed, not by inflexion, but by an auxiliary verb. Doceor 
is truly a passive voice ; but / am taught cannot, without 
impropriety, be considered as such. Besides, as it is justly 
observed by Dr. Ash, our author, when he parses the clause, 
" I am well pleased," tells us that am is the indicative mood, 
present tense of the verb to be ; and pleased, the passive 
participle of the verb to please. Now, in parsing, every 

great confusion and perplexity. Quce (inutilia prceceptd) a lingua nostra 
sunt prorsus aliena, adeoque confusionem potius et obscuritatem pariunt, 
quam explicationi inserviunt. 



90 ETYMOLOGY. 



word should be considered as a distinct part of speech : 
whether, therefore, we admit pleased to be a passive participle 
or not, (for this point I shall afterwards examine,) it is obvious 
that on the principle now laid down, and acknowledged by 
Dr. Lowth, am pleased is not a present passive, nor has the 
author himself parsed it in this manner. Into such incon- 
sistencies do our grammarians run, from a propensity to force 
the grammar of our language into a conformity with the 
structure of Greek and Latin. 

The same reasoning will also account for my assigning to 
English verbs no more than two tenses and one mood. For, 
if we consider the matter, not metaphysically, but grammati- 
cally, and regard those only as moods which are diversified 
by inflexion, (and, as Lowth himself observes, as far as gram- 
mar is concerned, there can be no others,) we find that our 
language has only one mood and two tenses. 

This doctrine, in respect to the cases, is very generally 
admitted. For though the Greeks and Romans expressed 
the different relations by variety of inflexion, which they 
termed cases, it does not follow that we are to acknowledge 
the same number of cases as they had, when these relations 
are expressed in English, not by inflexions, but by preposi- 
tions or words significant of these relations. The Latins 
would not have acknowledged absque fructu, without fruit, as 
forming a seventh case, though they acknowledged fructu, 
by fruit, as making an ablative or sixth case. And why ? 
because the latter only was formed by inflexion. For this 
reason, I consider giving the name of dative case to the 
combination of words to a king, or of ablative case to the 
expression from a king, to be a palpable impropriety. Our 
language knows no such cases ; nor would an Englishman, 
unacquainted with Greek or Latin, ever dream of these cases, 
though perfectly master of his own language. 

In the same manner it may be asked, what could lead him 
to distinguish a diversity of moods, or a plurality of voices, 
where there is no variety of termination to discriminate them ? 
The distinction of circumstances, respecting the modes of 
existence, he expresses by words significant of these ac- 
cidents ; but he would no more dream of giving these 



: 



ETYMOLOGY. 91 

forms of expression the name of moods, than he would be 
disposed to call from a king by the name of casus ablativus, 
or permit me to go the first person singular of the imperative 
mood. If, indeed, he were somewhat acquainted with Latin, 
he might, in the true spirit of modern grammarians, contend 
that let me go, or permit me to go, is truly the first person 
singular of the imperative mood ; assigning as a reason for 
this assertion, that such is the designation of earn in Latin. 
With the most correct knowledge, however, of his own lan- 
guage only, he could never be seduced into this absurdity. 
A little reflection indeed might teach him, that even earn in 
Latin is an elliptical expression for sine ut earn, the word 
earn itself denoting neither entreaty nor command. 

In truth, we may as reasonably contend that our language 
has all the tenses which are to be found in Greek and Latin, 
because, by the aid of auxiliaries and definitives, we contrive 
to express what they denoted by one word, as to contend 
that we have a potential, an optative or imperative mood, or 
a passive voice ; because by auxiliaries or variety of arrange- 
ment we can express the circumstances of power, liberty, 
duty, passion, &c. No grammarian has yet gone so far as 
to affirm that we have in English a paulo post future, be- 
cause our language, by definitives or auxiliaries, is capable 
of expressing that time. Or, what should we think of that 
person's discernment, who should contend that the Latins 
had an optative mood, because utinam legeres signifies " I 
wish you would read"? It is equally absurd to say that we 
have an imperfect, preterpluperfect, or future tenses ; or that 
we have all the Greek varieties of mood, and two voices, be- 
cause by the aid of auxiliary words and definite terms we 
contrive to express these accidents, times, or states of being. 
I consider, therefore, that we have no more cases, moods, 
tenses, or voices in our language, as far as its grammar, not 
its capacity of expression, is concerned, than we have variety 
of termination to denote these different accessary ideas. 

As the terminations of most verbs in languages are varied 
by tense and mood, so are they also varied according as the 
subject is of the first, second, or third person. Thus, in the 
only two tenses that we have in English, namely, the present 



92 E TYMOLOGY. 

and the preterperfect tenses, the second person singular of 
each is formed from the first, by adding; .s^ or est, as, / love, 
thou lovest ; I loved, thou lovedst ; and the third person sin- 
gular of the present is formed by adding s, or the syllable 
eth or tit, to the first as, love, loves, or loveth ; read, reads, 
or readeth. These are the only variations which our verbs 
admit, in concordance with the person of the nominative sin- 
gular. The three persons plural are always the same with 
the first person singular. 

Before I proceed to the conjugation of verbs in general, I 
shall first explain the manner in which the auxiliaries are 
conjugated. Of these the most extensively useful is the 
verb to be, denoting simple affirmation, or expressing exist- 
ence. The next is that which signifies action, namely, the 
verb to do. The third is the verb to have, implying posses- 
sion. The others are, shall, will, may, can, &c. I begin 
with the verb to be. 

Indicative Mood. 

Present Tense. 
& Sing. I am Thou art He, she, or it is 

Plur. We are Ye or you are They are. 

a I be Thou beest He, she, or it be 

We be Ye or you be They be, 

from the Saxon 
Ic beo Thu beest He beeth, 

are obsolete, unless followed by a concessive term. Thus, instead of say- 
ing, " Many there be that go in thereat," we should now say, "Many 
there are." For " to whom all hearts be open," we should now write, 
" to whom all hearts are open." We find them, however, used with the 
conjunctions if and though; thus, " If this be my notion of a great part 
of that high science, divinity, you will be so civil as to imagine, I lay no 
mighty stress upon the rest." — Pope. That this was his notion the author 
had previously declared ; the introductory clause, therefore, is clearly 
affirmative, and is the same as if he had said, "As this is my notion." 
" Although she be abundantly grateful to all her protectors, yet I observe 
your name most often in her mouth." — Swift. " The paper, although 
it be written with spirit, yet would have scarce cleared a shilling." — Swift. 
In the two last sentences the meaning is affirmative ; nothing conditional 
or contingent being implied. 

In the following examples, it expresses doubt or contingency. " If 





ETYMOLOGY. 






Preterite. 




Sing. 


I was Thou wast a 


He was 


Plur. 


We were Ye or you were 

Imperfect Conditional. 


They were. 


Sing. 


I were Thou wert 


He were 


Plur. 


We were Ye or you were 


They were 



93 



Infinitive. 
To be. 

It may seem inconsistent with the opinion which I have 
delivered concerning moods, to assign an infinitive to this 
verb ; and the existence of this infinitive may appear, perhaps, 
a sufficient refutation of that opinion. I shall, therefore, 
briefly repeat what I have said, and offer a few additional 
observations. 

I have remarked that the first care of men, in a rude and 
infant state, would be to assign names to surrounding objects ; 
and that the noun, in the natural order of things, must have 
been the first part of speech. Their inventive powers would 
next be employed to express the most common energies or 
states of being, such ^is are denoted by the verbs to do, to 
be, to suffer. Hence, by the help of these combined with a 
noun, they might express the energy or state of that thing, 
of which the noun was the name. Thus, I shall suppose 
that they assigned the word plant, as the name of a vege- 
table set in the ground. To express the act of setting it, 
they would say, do plant, that is, act plant. The letters d 
and i being nearly allied, it is easy to conceive how the word 
do, by a variation very natural and common to all languages, 
might be changed into to ; and thus the word to prefixed to 
a noun would express the correspondent energy or action. 

In what light, then, are we to consider the phrase to plant, 
termed an infinitive, or to what class of words is it reduci- 

thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down :" i. e. " shouldst be." " If 
I be in difficulty, I will ask your aid ; " i. e. (i If I should be." 

a Though the authority of Milton, Dryden, Pope, and Swift, can be 
pleaded in favour of wert, as the second person singular of this tense, I 
am inclined to agree with Lowth, that in conformity to analogy, as well 
as the practice of the best ancient writers, it would be better to confine 
wert to the imperfect conditional. 



94 ETYMOLOGY. 



ble ? Previously to my answering this question, it is ne 
cessary to remind the reader, that a verb joined to a noun 
forms a sentence ; that affirmation is essential to the character 
of a verb ; and that, for this reason, and this only, it has 
been pre-eminently distinguished by the name of verb, or the 
word. Destroy this characteristic, and it is immediately 
confounded with the adjective, or the participle. It is its 
power of predication only, which constitutes it a distinct 
part of speech, and discriminates it from every other. Fir 
saplt, and vir est sapiens, are equivalent expressions. Cancel 
the assertion, and the verb is lost. The expression becomes 
vir sapiens, "a wise man." This opinion, I am persuaded, 
requires only to be examined to be universally adopted. If 
this be the case, the infinitive which affirms nothing, cannot, 
without impropriety, be deemed a verb. It expresses merely 
an action, passion, or state abstractedly. Hence many gram- 
marians have justly considered it as no part of the verb ; and, 
in the languages of Greece and Home, the infinitive was 
employed like a common substantive, having frequently an 
adjective joined with it, and subject to the government of 
verbs and prepositions. This opinion has been lately con- 
troverted by a writer of considerable eminence as a Latin 
scholar. But, after examining the matter with attention, I 
take upon me to affirm, that not a single example can be pro- 
duced wherein the infinitive, as used by the Greeks and 
Romans, might not be supplied by the substitution of a noun. 
Wherefore, admitting the established principle, voces valent 
significatione, there cannot exist a doubt that the infini- 
tive, which may in all cases be supplied by a noun, has 
itself the real character of a noun. And, if the essence of a 
verb consist in predication, and not, as some think, in imply- 
ing time in conjunction with an attribute, which is the cha- 
racteristic of a participle, then the infinitive, as it can pre- 
dicate nothing, and joined to a substantive makes no sentence, 
cannot therefore be deemed a verb. When I say, legere est 
facile, " to read is easy," it is obvious that there is only one 
sentence in each of these expressions. But if legere (to read) 
were a verb as well as est (is), then there would be two verbs 
and also two affirmations, for affirmation is inseparable from 
a verb. I remark also, that the verbal noun lectio (reading) 



: 



ETYMOLOGY. 95 

substituted for legere (to read) would precisely express the 
same sentiment. For these reasons I concur decidedly with 
those grammarians who are so far from considering the in- 
finitive as a distinct mood, that they entirely exclude it from 
the appellation of verb a . 

It may be asked, what then is it to be called ? In answer 
to this query, I observe, that it matters little what designa- 
tion be assigned to it, provided its character and office be 
fully understood. The ancient Latin grammarians, as Pris- 
cian informs us, termed it properly enough, nomen verbi, 
" the noun or name of the verb." To proscribe terms, which 
have been long familiar to us, and, by immemorial possession, 
have gained an establishment, is always a difficult, and fre- 
quently an ungracious task. I shall therefore retain its usual 
name, having sufficiently guarded the reader against a mis- 
conception of its character. 

Now, in our language, the infinitive has not even the dis- 
tinction arising from termination, to entitle it to be ranked in 
the number of moods ; its form being the same with that of 
the present tense, and probably, both in its termination and 
its prefix, originally identical. For, if the doctrine just pro- 
posed be correct, the word do was put before each. To this 
rule the English language furnishes only one exception, 
namely, the verb of existence, in which the present indicative 
is am, whereas the infinitive is to be. This, however, can 
scarcely be deemed an exception, when it is considered, that 
the present indicative of this verb was originally he as well as 
am ; though the former be now in a state of obsolescence, or 
rather entirely obsolete. At the same time, as this is the only 
verb in which the infinitive differs in form from the present 
of the indicative, I have judged it necessary to note the ex- 
ception, and assign the infinitive. 

' a If the expression of time with an attribute " be sufficient to make a 
verb, the participle must be a verb too, because it signifies time also. 
But the essence of a verb consisting in predication, which is peculiar to 
it, and incommunicable to all other parts of speech, and these infinitives 
never predicating, they cannot be verbs. Again, the essence of a noun 
consisting in its so subsisting in the understanding, as that it may be the 
subject of predication, and these infinitives being all capable of so sub- 
sisting, they must of necessity be nouns." — R. Johnson's Gram. Comment. 



96 



Sing. I do 
Plur. We do 



ETYMOLOGY. 








Present part. 


Being 






Past part. 


Been a . 






TO DO. 








Indicative Mood. 






Present. 








Thou doest or dost 


He doeth, 


doth 


or does 


Ye or you do 


They do. 






Preterperfect 


. 







I did Thou didst He, she, or it did b 

Plur. We did Ye or you did They did. 

Participles. 

Present Doing 

Past Done. 

TO HAVE. 

Indicative Mood. 

Present. 
Sing. I have Thou hast He hath or has 

Plur. We have Ye or you have They have. 

a The variety of form which this verb assumes, clearly shows that it 
has proceeded from different sources. 

Am is from the Anglo-Saxon eom, and is from the Anglo-Saxon j/s or is; 
and these have been supposed to have come from the Greek elfii, els. 

The derivation of are is doubtful. It may, perhaps, have proceeded 
directly from er or erum of the Icelandic verb, denoting "to be." By Mr. 
Gilchrist it is considered as " the same with the infinitive termination 
are, ere, ire." Mr. Webb conjectured, that it might have some relation 
to the Greek <?ap, spring. Both these explanations appear to us some- 
what fanciful. 

Art is from the Anglo-Saxon eart. "Thou eart," thou art. 

Was is evidently the Anglo-Saxon was; and wast, wert, probably 
from the Franco-Theatisc, warsi ; and were from the Anglo-Saxon wcere, 
wceron. 

Be is from the Anglo-Saxon Ic beo, I am, which, with the Gaelic verb 
hi, to be, Mr. Webb considered to be derived from (Hlos, life, as the Latin 
fui, from <j)va>, to grow. This conjecture he supports by several pertinent 
quotations. See Mr. Bos worth's " Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar," 
p. 164. 

b The words did, hast, hath, lias, had, shalt, wilt, are evidently, as 
Wallis observes, contracted for doed, haveth, haves, haved, shalVst, wilVst. 



ETYMOLOGY. 97 

Prefer perfect. 
Sing. I had Thou hadst He had 

Plur. We had Ye or you had They had. 

Participles. 
Present Having 

Past Had. 

Liberty is expressed by the verb 

MAY. 

Indicative Mood. 

Present. 

Sing. I may Thou may est He may 

Plur. We may Ye or you may They may a . 

Prefer perfect. 
Sing. I might Thou mightest He might 

Plur. We might Ye or you might They might. 

Power or ability is expressed by 
CAN. 

Indicative Mood. 

Present. 

Sing. I can Thou canst He can 

Plur. We can Ye or you can They can b . 

Preterperfect, 

Sing. I could Thou couldst He could 

Plur. We could Ye or you could They could. 

a This verb is derived from the Saxon magan, posse, the present of 
which is Ic mceg, and the preterite Ic viiht. Hence also Ic mot. 
" For as the fisshe, if it be drie, 

Mote in defaute of water die." — Gower. 

b This verb is derived from cunnan, scire, posse, sapere. Hence is de- 
rived the verb "to ken," or "to know;" or more probably, indeed, they 
were one and the same word : hence also the word cunning. " To ken" 
is still used in Scotland; and in the expression of Shakspeare, " I ken 
them from afar," is erroneously considered by some critics to mean, " I 
see them." 



y» ETYMOLOGY. 

Futurition and duty are expressed by the verb shall, but 
not each in the three persons. 

Indicative Mood. 
Present. 
a Sing. I shall Thou shalt He shall 

Plur. We shall Ye or you shall They shall. 

a This verb is, unquestionably, a derivative from the Saxon j*ceal, / 
owe or / ought, and was originally of the same import. I shall denoted 
"it is my duty," and was precisely synonymous with debeo in Latin. 
Chaucer says, " The faith I shall to God;" that is, " the faith I owe to 
God." " Thou shalt not kill," or " thou oughtest not to kill." In this 
sense shall is a present tense, and denoted present duty or obligation. 
But, as all duties and all commands, though present in respect to their 
obligation and authority, must be future in regard to their execution ; so 
by a natural transition, observable in most languages, this word, signifi- 
cant of present duty, came to be a note of future time. I have considered 
it, however, as a present tense ; 1st, because it originally denoted present 
time ; 2dly, because it still retains the form of a present, preserving thus 
the same analogy to should that can does to could, may to might, will to 
would ; and 3dly, because itis no singular thing to have a verb in the present 
tense, expressive of future time, commencing from the present moment ; 
for such precisely is the Greek verb fieXkco, futurus sum. Nay, the verb 
will denotes present inclination, yet in some of its persons, like shall, ex- 
presses futurition. I have considered, therefore, the verb shall as a pre- 
sent tense, of which should is the preterperfect. 

Johnson's explanation of the meaning of this verb is so perspicuous, 
that, as foreigners are apt to mistake its use, I shall here transcribe his 
words. I shall love : "it will be so that I must love," "lam resolved to 
love." Shall I love? " will it be permitted me to love?" " will it be 
that I must love ?" Thou shalt love : "I command thee to love ;" " it is 
permitted thee to love;" "it will be, that thou must love." Shalt thou 
love? " will it be, that thou must love ?" " will it be permitted thee to 
love?" He shall love: "it will be, that he must love;" "itis commanded 
that he love." Shall he love ? " is it permitted him to love ? " The plural 
persons follow the signification of the singular. 

I transcribe also the same author's explanation of the verb / will. I 
will come : " I am willing to come," " I am determined to come." Thou 
wilt come: "it must be, that thou must come," importing necessity; 
or "it shall be, that thou shalt come," importing choice. Wilt thou come? 
"hast thou determined to come?" importing choice. He will come: 
" he is resolved to come ;" or " it must be, that he must come," import- 
ing choice or necessity. 



ETYMOLOGY. 99 

Preterperfect. 

Sing. I should Thou shouldst He should 

Plur. We should Ye or you should They should. 

Volition and futurity are expressed by the verb to will. 







Present. 




Sing. 


I will 


Thou wilt 


He will 


Plur. 


We will 


Ye or you will 
Preterperfect. 


They will a . 


Sing. 


T would 


Thou wouldst 


He would 


Plur. 


We would 


Ye or you would 


They would. 



Priestley and Lowth, who have in this been followed by 
most other grammarians, call the tenses may, can, shall, will, 
absolute tenses ; might, could, should, would, conditional. 
That might, could, should, would, frequently imply condition- 
ally, there can be no question ; but I am persuaded that the 
proper character of these tenses is unconditional affirmation, 
and for these two reasons : 

1st. Their formation seems to indicate that they are pre- 
terites indicative, proceeding from their respective presents, 
in the same manner as did from do, had from have, and. 
having therefore the same unconditional meaning. Thus,/ 
mag, is equivalent to " I am at liberty ;" / might, to " I was 

Brightland's short rule may be of some service in assisting foreigners 
to distinguish the use of these two verbs. It is this : 
11 In the first person simply shall foretels : 
In will a threat, or else a promise, dwells ; 
Shall in the second and the third does threat ; 
Will simply then foretels the future feat." 
In addition to these directions for the use of shall and will, it is to be 
observed, that, when the second and third persons are represented as the 
subjects of their own expressions, or their own thoughts, shall foretels, as 
in the first person, thus, " he says he shall be a loser by this bargain :" 
" do you suppose you shall go?" " He hoped he should recover," and 
" he hoped he would recover," are expressions of different import. In 
the former, the two pronouns necessarily refer to the same person ; in the 
latter, they do not. 

a This verb is derived from the Saxon verb willan, velle, the preterite 
of which is Ic wold. 

H 2 



100 ETYMOLOGY. 

at liberty;" / can, means "I am able;" / could, " L was 
able ;" / will, " I am willing ;" / would, " I was willing." 

2dly. They are used to express unconditional meaning. 
If we say, " This might prove fatal to your interest," the 
assertion of the possibility of the event is as unconditional 
as absolute, as, " This may prove fatal to your interest." 
" This, if you do it, will ruin your cause," is precisely 
equivalent to, "This, were you to do it, would ruin your 
cause;" equivalent as far, at least, as the unconditional 
affirmation of the consequence of a supposed action is in- 
volved a . " I may write, if I choose," is not more absolute 
than " I might write, if I chose." If I say, " I might have 
gone to the Continent," the expression is as unconditional 
as, " I had it in my power," " I was at liberty to go to the 
Continent." " Can you construe Lycophron ? " " I cannot 
now ; but once / could.' 1 '' " May you do as you please ? " 
" Not now ; but once I might." Is there any conditionality 
implied in the latter clause of each of these answers ? Not 
the least. They are unconditionally assertive. The forma- 
tion of these tenses, therefore, being analogous to that of 
preterites indicative, and their import in these examples, as 
in many others which might be adduced, being unconditional 
and absolute, I am inclined to consider them as preterites in- 
dicative, agreeably to their form, and as properly uncon- 
ditional in respect to signification. 

a The preterite would is frequently employed, like the Latin preterim- 
perfect tense, to denote what is usual or customary. Thus, 
Quintilio si quid recitares, corrige, sodes, 
Hoc, aiebat, et hoc ; melius te posse negares, 
Bis terque expertum frustra; delere jubebat, 
Et male tornatos incudi reddere versus : 
Si defendere delictum quam vertere, malles, 
Nullum ultra verbum, aut operam insumebat inanem. 

Horace. 
where the verbs aiebat, jubebat, insumebat, may be translated, " he would 
say," "he would desire," "he would spend." Thus also in English, 
Pleas'd with my admiration, and the fire 
His speech struck from me, the old man would shake 
His years away, and act his young encounters : 
Then having show'd his wounds, he'd sit him down. 



ETYMOLOGY. 101 

I observe, however, that though might, could, would, 
should, are preterite tenses, they are frequently employed to 
denote present time a ; but in such examples care must be 
taken that congruity of tense be preserved, and that the sub- 
sequent be expressed in the same tense with the antecedent 
verb. Thus I say, " I may go if I choose," where the li- 
berty and inclination are each expressed as present ; or, " I 
might go if I chose," where, though present time be implied, 
the liberty is expressed by the preterite, and the inclination 
is denoted by the same tense. 

Before I proceed to show how these auxiliary verbs are 
joined with others, to express the intended accessary ideas, 
I shall offer a few observations on the participle. 

a In Latin the imperfect potential is frequently employed in the same 
manner to denote present time ; thus, irem si vellem, expresses present 
liberty and inclination. And the same analogy obtains in Latin ; for we 
say, either, lu, si hie sis, aliter sentias, or tu, si hie esses, aliter sentires. 
In such examples, it is intended to signify either the coexistence of two 
circumstances, or the one as the immediate consequence of the other. 
An identity of tense, therefore, best expresses contemporary events. 



102 ETYMOLOGY. 



CHAPTER VI. 

A participle is a part of speech derived from a verb, agree- 
ing with its primitive in denoting action, being, or suffering, 
but differing from it in this, that the participle implies no 
affirmation a . 

There are two participles, the present, ending in ing, as 
reading* ; and the perfect or past, generally ending in d or 
ed, as heard, loved. 

The present participle denotes the relatively present, or 
the contemporary continuation of an action, or state of being. 
If we say, " James was building the house," the participle 
expresses the continuation of the action, and the verb may 
be considered as active. If we say, " the house was build- 

a If it should be said, that the participle may properly be considered 
as a verb, since it implies an attribute with time, I would ask, whether 
affirmation, the most important of all circumstances, and without which 
no communication could take place, should be overlooked in our classi- 
fication of words agreeably to their import, or the offices which they per- 
form. If the verb and participle be referred to one class, the principal 
part of speech which has been pre-eminently distinguished by the name 
of verb, or the word, is degraded from its rank, and confounded with a 
species of words which are not even necessary to the communication of 
thought. Surely, if any circumstance can entitle any sort of words to a 
distinct reference, it is that of affirmation. 

If it should be objected that the participle, like the verb, governs a 
case, I would ask, because lectio, tactio, and many other substantives, are 
found sometimes joined with an accusative case, were they ever on this 
account considered as verbs ? Besides, if the government of a case be 
urged as an argument, what becomes of those participles which govern 
no case ? Nay, if the government of a case be deemed the criterion of 
a verb, what name shall we assign to those verbs which have no regimen 
at all ? If any species of words is to be distinguished from another, the 
characteristic difference must surely belong, not to part only, but to the 
whole. 

b The termination ing is from the Anglo-Saxon ande, cende, ende, ind, 
onde, unde, ynde, and corresponds to the termination of the Latin gerunds 
in andum and endum, expressing continuation, Amandum, Lujiande, Loving. 



ETYMOLOGY. 103 

ing, when the wall fell," the participle, the same as in the 
preceding example, denotes here the continuation of a state 
of suffering, or being acted upon ; and the verb may be con- 
sidered as passive. This participle, therefore, denoting either 
action or passion, cannot with propriety be considered, as it 
has been by some grammarians, as entirely an active par- 
ticiple. Its distinctive and real character is, that in point of 
time it denotes the relatively present, and may therefore be 
called the present participle ; and, in regard to action or 
passion, it denotes their continuance or incompletion, and 
may therefore be termed imperfect. In respect to time, 
therefore, it is present ; in respect to the action or state of 
being, it is continued or imperfect. But whether it express 
action or passion can be ascertained only by inquiring 
whether the subject be acting or suffering; and this is a 
question which judgment only can decide, the participle it- 
self not determining the point. If we say, " the prisoner 
was burning," our knowledge of the subject only can enable 
us to determine whether the prisoner was active or passive ; 
whether he was employing fire to consume, or was himself 
consuming by fire. 

The other participle, ending generally in ed or d, has been 
called by some grammarians the passive participle, in con- 
tradistinction to the one which we have now been consider- 
ing, and which they have termed the active participle. 
" This participle has been so called," says the author of the 
British Grammar, " because, joined with the verb to be, it 
forms the passive voice." If the reason here assigned justify 
its denomination as a passive participle, there exists the 
same reason for calling it an active participle ; for, with the 
verb to have, it forms some of the compound tenses of the 
active voice. The truth is, that, as those grammarians have 
erred who consider the participle in ing as an active partici- 
ple, when it in fact denotes either action or passion, so those* 
on the other hand, commit a similar mistake, who regard the 
participle in ed as purely passive. A little attention will 
suffice to show that it belongs to neither the one voice nor 
the other peculiarly : and that it denotes merely completion 
or perfection, in contradistinction to the other participle, 



104 ETYMOLOGY. 

which expresses imperfection or continuation. If it be true, 
indeed, that the participle in ing does not belong to the 
active voice only, but expresses merely the continuation of 
any act, passion, or state of being, analogy would incline us 
to infer, that the participle in ed, which denotes the comple- 
tion of an act or state of being, cannot belong exclusively to 
the passive voice ; and I conceive that, on inquiry, we shall 
find this to be the case. If I say, " he had concealed a 
poniard under his coat," the participle here would be con- 
sidered as active. If I say, " he had a poniard concealed 
under his clothes," the participle would be regarded as 
passive. Does not this prove that this participle is am- 
biguous, that it properly belongs to neither voice, and that 
the context only, or the arrangement, can determine, whether 
it denote the perfection of an action, or the completion of a 
passion or state of being ? When I say, " Lucretia stabbed 
herself with a dagger, which she had concealed under her 
clothes," it is impossible to ascertain whether the participle 
be active or passive, that is, whether the verb had be here 
merely an auxiliary verb, or be synonymous with the verb to 
possess. If the former be intended, the syntactical colloca- 
tion is, " she had concealed (which) dagger under her clothes : " 
if the latter, the grammatical order is, " she had which dagger 
concealed :" and it requires but little discernment to perceive 
that " she had concealed a dagger," and " had a dagger con- 
cealed," are expressions by no means precisely equivalent. 

I need not here remind the classical scholar, that the Latins 
had two distinct forms of expression to mark this diversity ; 
the one, quern abdiderat, and the other quern abditum liabe- 
bat. The latter is the phraseology of Livy, describing the 
suicide of Lucretia. His words, if translated, " which she 
had concealed," become ambiguous ; for this is equally a 
translation of quern abdiderat. It is observable also, that 
the phrase quern abdiderat would not imply, that the dagger 
was in the possession of Lucretia at the time. 

The participle in ed, therefore, I consider to be perfectly 
analogous to the participle in ing, and used like it in either 
an active or passive sense ; belonging, therefore, neither to 
the one voice nor the other exclusively, but denoting the 






ETYMOLOGY. 105 

completion of an action or state of being, while the participle 
in ing denotes its continuation. 

In exhibiting a paradigm of the conjugation of our verbs, 
many grammarians have implicitly and servilely copied the 
Latin grammar, transferring into our language the names 
both of tenses and moods which have formally no existence 
in English. " I may burn," is denominated, by the author 
of the British Grammar, the present subjunctive ; " I might 
burn," the imperfect subjunctive ; " I may have burned," the 
preterperfect ; and so on. This is directly repugnant to the 
simplicity of our language, and is in truth as absurd as it 
would be to call " we two love," the dual number of the pre- 
sent tense ; or " he shall soon be buried," a paulo post 
future. "Were this principle carried its full length, we 
should have all the tenses, moods, and numbers, which are 
to be found in Greek or Latin. It appears to me, that 
nothing but prejudice or affectation could have prompted our 
English grammarians to desert the simple structure of their 
own language, and wantonly to perplex it with technical 
terms, for things not existing in the language itself. 

I purpose, therefore, in exhibiting the conjugation of the 
English verb, to give the simple tenses, as the only ones be- 
longing to our language ; and then show how, by the aid of 
other words combined with these, we contrive to express the 
requisite modifications, and various accessary ideas. 



Indicative Present, Preter. 


Part. Perf. 


Write Wrote 


Written. 


Present Tense. 




S. I write Thou write st 


He writes or writeth 


P. We write Ye or you write 


They write. 



This tense is by some grammarians called the present indefi- 
nite ; while by others it is considered as either definite or in- 
definite. When it expresses an action now present, it is 
termed the present definite, as, 

" I write this after a severe illness." — Popes Letters. 

" Saul, why persecutest thou me ? " — Bible. 

" This day begins the woe, others must end."— Shakspeare. 



106 ETYMOLOGY. 

If the proposition expressed be general, or true at all times, 
this tense is then termed the present indefinite ; as, " The 
wicked flee, when no man pursueth." 

" Through tatter'd clothes small vices do appear; 
Robes andfurred gowns hide all." — Shalcspcarc. 

Preterperfect. 
S. I wrote Thou wrotest He wrote 

P. We wrote Ye or you wrote They wrote. 

This tense is indefinite, no particular past time being 
implied. 

These are the only two tenses in our language formed by 
varying the termination ; the only two tenses, therefore, which 
properly belong to it. 

Present Progressive, or continued. 
S. I am writing Thou art writing He is writing 

P. We are writing You are writing They are writing. 

This tense denotes a present action proceeding. In re- 
gard to time, it has been termed definite ; and, in respect to 
action, it differs from the other present in this, that the 
former has no reference either to the perfection or imperfec- 
tion of the action ; whereas this denotes that the action is 
continued and imperfect. 

Present Emphatic. 
S. I do write Thou dost write He doth or does write 
P. We do write Ye or you do write They do write. 

This form of the verb is emphatic, and generally implies 
doubt or contradiction on the part of the person addressed, 
to remove which the assertion is enforced by the auxiliary 
verb. In respect to time and action, it is precisely the same 
with / write. 

" You cannot dread an honourable death." 

" I do dread it." 

" Excellent wretch ! perdition seize my soul, but I do love 
thee." 

Cancel the auxiliary verb, and the expression becomes 
feeble and spiritless. This is one of those phraseologies, 
which it would be impossible to render in a transpositive 



ETYMOLOGY. 107 

language. Di me perdant, quin te anient, is an expression 
comparatively exanimate and insipid. 

Preterite, Indefinite, and Emphatic. 
S. I did write Thou didst write He did write 

P. We did write You did write They did write. 

as, " This to me in dreadful secrecy impart they did." The 
emphasis here, however, may partly arise from the inverted 
collocation. The following example is therefore more ap- 
posite. " I have been told that you have slighted me, and 
said, I feared to face my enemy. You surely did not wrong 
me thus ?" " I did say so." 

This tense is indefinite, in respect both to the time, and 
the completion of the action. 

Preter. Imp. fyc. continued. 
8. I was writing Thou wast writing He was writing 
P. We were writing Ye were writing They were writing. 

This tense denotes that an action was proceeding, or going 
on, at a time past either specified or implied, as " I was 
writing when you called." 



Preter perfect. 
S. I have Thou hast He has 

P. We have You have They ha\ 



\ written. 



This tense expresses time as past, and the action as per- 
fect. It is compounded of the present tense of the verb de- 
noting possession and the perfect participle. It signifies a 
perfect action either newly finished, or in a time of which 
there is some part to elapse, or an action whose consequences 
extend to the present. In short, it clearly refers to present 
time. This, indeed, the composition of the tense manifestly 
evinces. Thus, " I have written a letter," means " I pos- 
sess at present the finished action of writing a letter." This 
phraseology, I acknowledge, seems uncouth and inelegant ; 
but, how awkward soever it may appear, the tense is unques- 
tionably thus resolvable. 

1st. It expresses an action newly finished, as, " I under- 



108 ETYMOLOGY. 

stand that a messenger has arrived from Paris," that is, 
" newly," or "just now," arrived. 

2dly. An action done in a space of time, part of which is 
yet to elapse ; as, " It has rained all this week," " We have 
seen strange things this century." 

3dly. An action perfected some time ago, but whose con- 
sequences extend to the present time ; as, " I have wasted my 
time, and now suffer for my folly." 

This tense has been termed, by some grammarians, the 
perfect indefinite, and " I wrote," the perfect definite. The 
argument which they offer for this denomination is, that the 
latter admits a definitive, to specify the precise time, and the 
former rejects it. Those who reason in this manner seem to 
me not only chargeable with a perversion of terms, but also 
to disprove their own theory. For what is meant by a defi- 
nite term ? Not surely that which admits or requires a defi- 
nitive to give it precision ; but that which of itself is already 
definite. If, therefore, " I wrote," not only admits, but even 
requires, the subjunction of a defining term or clause to render 
the time definite and precise, it cannot surely be itself a de- 
finite tense. Besides, they appear to me to reason in this 
case inconsistently with their own principles. For they call 
/ am writing a definite tense ; and why ? but because it de- 
fines the action to be imperfect, or the time to be relatively 
present a . But if they reason here as they do in respect to 
the preterite tenses, they ought to call this an indefinite tense, 
because it admits not a definitive clause. They must, there- 
fore, either acknowledge that i" have written is a definite 
tense, and / wrote, indefinite ; or they must, contrary to their 
own principles, call / am writing indefinite. 

Dr. Arthur Browne, in an Essay on the Greek Tenses b , 
contends, that i" wrote is the perfect definite, and I have 
written the perfect indefinite. " I wrote" says he, "is not 
intelligible without referring to some precise point of time, 
e. g. when I was in France. Why, then, doesfDr. Beattie say 

a Here I would be understood to reason on their own principles ; for 
the truth is, that each of these tenses admits a definitive. 
b See the Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, vol. iii. 



ETYMOLOGY. 109 

I wrote is indefinite, because it refers to no particular past 
time ? No : it is indefinite because the verb in that tense does 
not define whether the action be complete or not complete. 
And why does he say, / have written is definite in respect 
of time ? for it refers to no particular time at which the event 
happened. Put this example: A says to B, 'I wish you 
would write to that man.' ' I have written to him,'' the sense 
is complete ; the expression is not supposed to refer to any par- 
ticular time, and does not necessarily elicit any further inquiry. 
But if B answers, c I wrote to himf he is of course supposed 
to have in his mind a reference to some particular time, and 
it naturally calls on A to ask when ? It is not clear, then, 
that I wrote refers to some particular time, and cannot have 
been called indefinite, as Dr. Beattie supposes, from its not 
doing so ? " 

Dr. Browne's argument is chargeable with inconsistency. 
He says, that because I have written elicits no farther in- 
quiry, and renders the sense complete, it denotes no deter- 
minate time ; and that / tvrote refers to a particular time, 
prompting to farther inquiry. This at least I take to be the 
scope of his reasoning ; for if it be not from their occasioning, 
or not occasioning, farther interrogation, that he deduces his 
conclusion concerning the nature of these tenses, his argu- 
ment seems nothing but pure assertion. Now, so far from 
calling that a definite tense, which necessarily requires, as he 
himself states, a defining clause to specify the point of time, 
I should call it an indefinite tense. He admits that / wrote 
refers to time past in general, and that it requires some far- 
ther specification to render the time known, as i" wrote yes- 
terday. In this case, surely it is not the term wrote, but 
yesterday, which defines the precise time ; the tense itself ex- 
pressing nothing but past time in general. 

For the same reason, if, as he acknowledges, I have written 
elicits no farther inquiry, it is an argument that the sense is 
complete, and the time sufficiently understood by the hearer. 
Besides, is it not somewhat paradoxical to say that a tense 
which renders farther explanation unnecessary, and the sense 
complete, thus satisfying the hearer, is indefinite ? and that a 
tense which does not satisfy the hearer, but renders farther 



HO ETYMOLOGY. 

inquiry necessary, is definite ? This, to say the least, is some- 
what extraordinary. 

The observations of Lord Monboddo on this subject are 
not inapplicable to the point in question : I shall therefore 
transcribe them. 

" There are actions," says he, " which end in energy, and 
produce no work which remains after them. What shall we 
say of such actions ? cannot we say, I have danced a dance, 
taken a walk, &c, and how can such actions be said in any 
sense to be present ? My answer is, that the consequences 
of such actions, respecting the speaker, or some other person 
or thing, are present, and what these consequences are, ap- 
pears from the tenor of the discourse. ' I have taken a 
walk, and am much better for it.' ' I have danced a dance, 
and am inclined to dance no more.' " 

The order of nature being maintained, as Mr. Harris ob- 
serves, by a succession of contrarieties, the termination of 
one state of things naturally implies the commencement of its 
contrary. Hence this tense has been employed to denote an 
attribute the contrary to that which is expressed by the verb. 
Thus the Latins used vixit, " he hath lived," to denote " he 
is dead;"/^ Ilium, " Troy has been," to signify Troy is no 
more. A similar phraseology obtains in English ; thus, " I 
have been young," is equivalent to " now I am old." 

Prefer Imperfect. 
Sing. I have been Thou hast been He has been ) 

Plur. We have been You have been They have been/ 

This tense, in respect to time, is the same as the last, but 
implies the imperfection of the action, and denotes its pro- 
gression. 

Preter Pluperfect. 
Sing. I had Thou hadst He had } 

Plur. We had Ye or you had They had j 

This tense denotes that an action was perfected before an- 
other action was done. 

Plusquam Preterite Imperfect. 
Sing. I had been Thou hadst been He had been 1 

Plur. We had been Ye had been They had been] 






ETYMOLOGY. Ill 

This tense, in respect to time, is more than past, and in re- 
spect to action is imperfect. It denotes that an action was 
going on, or in a state of progression, before another action 
took place, or before it was perfected \ as, " I had been 
writing before you arrived." 

Future Indefinite. 

Sins,. I shall Thou shalt He shall 7 

J* write 
Plur. We shall Ye or you shall They shall ) 

OR 

Sine. I will Thou wilt He will ") 

V write 
Plur. We will Ye or you will They will j 

These compound tenses denote the futurity of an action in- 
definitely, without any reference to its completion. The 
meaning of the several persons has been already explained. 

Future Imp. Progressive. 

I shall or will be We shall or will be \ 

Thou shalt or wilt be Ye shall or will be L writing. 

He shall or will be They shall or will be J 

This tense agrees with the former in respect to time, but 
differs from it in this, that the former has no reference to the 
completion of the action, while the latter expresses its im- 
perfection and progression. 

Future Perfect. 

I shall have We shall have \ 

Thou shalt have Ye shall have L written. 

He shall have They shall have J 

This tense denotes that a future action will be perfected, 
before the commencement or completion of another action, 
or before a certain future time ; as, " Before you can have an 
answer, I shall have written a second letter." " By the time 
he shall have arrived, you will have conquered every diffi- 
culty." In short, it denotes, that at some future time an 
action will be perfected. 

As it has been a subject of great controversy among gram- 
marians, what tenses should be called definite and what in- 
definite, I shall now offer a few observations which may 
serve to illustrate the point in question. 

Duration, like space, is continuous and uninterrupted. It 
is divisible in idea only. It is past or future, merely in re- 



112 ETYMOLOGY. 

spect to some intermediate point, which the mind fixes as 
the limit between the one and the other. Present time, in 
truth, does not exist, any more than a mathematical line 
can have breadth, or a mathematical point be com- 
posed of parts. This position has, indeed, been contro- 
verted by Dr. Beattie ; but, in my judgment, without the 
shadow of philosophical argument K . Harris, Reid, and 

a Dr. Beattie observes, "that the fundamental error of those philo- 
sophers who deny the existence of present time is, that they suppose the 
present instant to have, like a geometrical point, neither parts nor mag- 
nitude. But as nothing is, in respect of our senses, a geometrical point, 
(for whatever we see or touch must of necessity have magnitude,) so 
neither is the present, or any other instant, wholly unextended." His 
argument amounts to this, that as a mathematical point is not an object 
of sense, nor has any real existence, so neither has a metaphysical in- 
stant. It is granted. They are each ideal. But does this prove the 
author's position, that philosophers have erred in asserting their simi- 
larity? or does it evince that no analogy subsists between them? Quite 
the reverse. The truth is, a geometrical point is purely ideal ; it is 
necessary to the truth of mathematical demonstration, that it be con- 
ceived to have no parts. Finding it convenient to represent it to sense, 
we therefore give it magnitude. A metaphysical instant, or present 
time, is in like manner ideal ; but we find it convenient to assume as 
present an extended space. The doctor observes, that sense perceives 
nothing but what is present. It is true ; but it should be remembered 
that not time, but objects which exist in time, are perceived by the senses. 
It may enable a person to form a correct idea of this matter, if he will 
ask himself, what he means by present time. If it be the present hour, 
is it not obvious that part of it is past, and part of it future? If it be 
the present minute, it is equally clear, that the whole of it cannot be 
present at once. Nay, if it be the present vibration of the pendulum, is 
[t not obvious that part of it is performed, and part of it remains to be 
performed ? Nor is it possible to stop in this investigation, till present 
time, strictly speaking, be proved to have no existence. Did it exist, 
it must be extended ; and if extended, it cannot be present, for past and 
future must necessarily be included in it. If it should be answered, 
that this proves time, like matter, infinitely divisible, and that the most 
tedious process will still leave something capable of division, I reply, 
that as whatever may be left in the one case must be figure, and not 
a point, so the remainder, in the other, must be a portion of extended 
time, how minute soever, and not an instant. The process, therefore, 
must be continued, till we arrive in idea at a point and an instant, in- 
capable of division, being not made up of parts. 



ETYMOLOGY. 113 

several others, have incontrovertibly proved it. But though 
present time, philosophically speaking, has no existence, we 
find it convenient to assume a certain portion of the past and 
the future, as intermediate spaces between these extremes, 
and to consider these spaces as present ; for example, the 
present day, the present week, the present year, the present 
century, though part of these several periods be past, and part 
to come. We speak of them, however, as present, as " this 
month," " this year," " this day." Time being thus in its 
nature continuous, and past and future being merely relative 
terms, some, portion or point of time being conceived where 
the one begins and the other ends, it is obvious that all 
tenses indicative of any of these two general divisions must 
denote relative time, that is, time past or future, in relation 
to some conceived or assumed space ; thus it may be past or 
future, in respect to the present hour, the present day, the 
present week. 

Again. The term indefinite is applicable either to time or 
to action. It may, therefore, be the predicate of a tense de- 
noting either that the precise time is left undetermined, or 
that the action specified is not signified, as either complete or 
imperfect. Hence the controversy has been partly verbal. 
Hence, also, the contending parties have seemed to differ, while, 
in fact, they were agreed ; and, on the contrary, have seemed 
to accord, while their opinions were, in truth, mutually re- 
pugnant. 

Dr. Browne confines the term to action only, and pleads 
the authority of Mr. Harris in his favour. It is true, indeed, 
that Mr. Harris calls those tenses definite which denote the 
beginning, the middle, or the perfection of an action: but it 
is obvious, from the most superficial examination of his 
theory, that he denominates the tenses definite or indefinite, 
not in respect to action, but to time. When, in the passage 
from Milton, 

" Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth, 
Unseen, both when we wake and when we sleep ; " 

he considers " walk " as indefinite, is it in regard to action ? 
No. " It is," says he, " because they were walking, not at 
that instant only, but indefinitely, at any instant whatever." 

i 



114 ETYMOLOGY. 

And when he terms, Thou shall not kill, an indefinite tense, is 
it because it has no reference to the completion or the imper- 
fection of the action ? No ; it is " because," says he, " this 
means no particular future time, but is extended indefinitely 
to every part of time." Besides, if Mr. Harris's and Dr. 
Browne's ideas coincide, how comes it that the one calls that 
a definite tense, which the other terms indefinite ? This does 
not look like accordance in sentiment, or in the application 
of terms. Yet the tenses in such examples as these, 

"The wicked flee when no man pursueth ;" 

"Ad pcenitendum properat, cito qui judicat ;" 

"God is good;" " Two and two are four ;" 
which Harris and Beattie properly call indefinite, Browne 
terms definite. Nay, he denominates them thus for the very 
reason for which the others call them indefinite, namely, be- 
cause the sentiments are always true, and the time of their 
existence never perfectly past. So far in respect to Mr. 
Harris's authority in favour of Browne, when he confines the 
terms definite and indefinite to action only a . 

But I forbear to prosecute this controversy further, or to 
point out the inaccuracies with which I apprehend many 
writers on this subject are chargeable. I therefore proceed 
to review and illustrate the doctrine of the tenses which I 
have already offered. 

The present time being, as I have already observed, an 
assumed space, and of no definite extent, as it may be either 
the present minute, the present hour, the present month, the 
present year, all of which consist of parts, it follows that, as 
the present time is itself indefinite, having no real existence, 
but being an arbitrary conception of the mind, the tense 
significant of that time must be also indefinite. This, I con- 
ceive, must be sufficiently evident. Hence the present tense 

a When we say, God is good, I would ask Dr. Browne whether the 
verb be definite or indefinite, whether it denote perfection or imperfec- 
tion, or have no reference to either. It appears to me that neither of 
the terms is in his sense applicable ; for that the verb denotes simple 
affirmation with time ; or, if applicable, that the tense is, contrary to his 
opinion, indefinite, the idea of completion or imperfection being entirely 
excluded. 



ETYMOLOGY. 115 

not only admits, but frequently requires, the definitive now to 
limit the interval between past and future, or to note the 
precise point of time. 

Time past and time future are conceived as infinitely more 
extended than the present. The tenses, therefore, significant 
of these two grand divisions of time, are also necessarily in- 
definite. 

Again, an action may be expressed, either as finished, or 
as proceeding; or it may be the subject of affirmation, with- 
out any reference to either of these states. In English, to 
denote the continuation of the action we employ the present 
or imperfect participle ; and to denote its completion we use 
the preterite or perfect participle. When neither is implied, 
the tenses significant of the three divisions of time, without 
any regard to the action as complete or imperfect, are uni- 
formly employed. 

The tenses, therefore, indefinite as to time and action are 
these : 

The Present I write 

The Preterite I wrote 

The Future I shall write. 

The six following compound tenses are equally indefinite 
in point of time ; but they denote either the completion or 
the progress of the action, and in this respect are definite. 

Its progress. Its perfection, as 

I am writing 1 written 

I was writing I had written 

I shall be writing I shall have written. 



/ write I am writing I have written. 

The first is indefinite as to time and action. If I say, " I 
write," it is impossible to ascertain by the mere expression, 
whether be signified, " I write now," " I write daily," or, " I 
am a writer in general." It is the concomitant circumstances 
only, either expressed or understood, which can determine 
what part of the present time is implied. When Pope intro- 
duces a letter to Lady M. W. Montague with these words, 
" I write this after a severe illness," is it the tense which 

I 2 



116 ETYMOLOGY. 

marks the time, or is it not the date of the letter, with which 
the writing is understood to be contemporary ? If you and 
I should see a person writing, and either of us should say, 
" He writes," the proposition would be particular, and time 
present with the speaker's observation would be understood : 
but, is it not evident, that it is not the tense which defines 
the present now, but the obvious circumstances of the person's 
writing at the time ? And when the king, in Hamlet, says, 

" My words fly up, my thoughts remain below : 
Words, without thoughts, never to heaven go," 

what renders the two first propositions particular, or confines 
the tenses to the time then present, while the last proposition 
is universally true, and the tense indefinite ? Nothing, I 
conceive, but the circumstances of the speaker. Nay, does 
it not frequently happen, that we must subjoin the word now 
to this tense, in order to define the point of time ? Did the 
tense of itself note the precise time, this definitive would in 
no case be necessary. If I say, " Apples are ripe," the pro- 
position, considered independently on adventitious circum- 
stances, is general and indefinite. The time may be defined 
by adding a specific clause, as, " in the month of October;" 
or, if nothing be subjoined, the ellipsis is supplied either by 
the previous conversation, or in some other way, and the 
hearer understands, " are now ripe." This tense, therefore, 
I consider as indefinite in point of time. That it is indefinite 
in regard to action, there can be no question. 

/ am writing. 

This tense also is indefinite in respect to time. It derives 
its character as a tense from the verb am, which implies 
affirmation with time, either now, generally, or always. Mr. 
Harris calls it the present definite, as I have already re- 
marked ; and in regard to action it is clearly definite. It is 
this, and this only, which distinguishes it from the other 
present, / write, the latter having no reference to the per- 
fection or imperfection of the action, while / am writing 
denotes its continuation. Hence it is, that the latter is em- 
ployed to express propositions generally or universally true, 
the idea of perfection or incompletion being, in such cases, 



ETYMOLOGY. 117 

excluded. Thus we say, The wicked flee when no man pur- 
sueth; but not, as I conceive, with equal propriety, The 
wicked are fleeing when no man is pursuing. 

I have written. 

As / am writing denotes the present continuation of an 
action, so / have written expresses an action completed in 
a time supposed to be continued to the present, or an action 
whose consequences extend to the present time. As a tense, 
it derives its character from the tense / have, significant of 
present time ; while the perfection of the action is denoted 
by the perfect participle. But as I have shown that every 
tense significant of present time must be, in regard to time, 
indefinite, so this tense, compounded of the present tense 
/ have, must, in this respect, be therefore indefinite. 

Lowth, Priestley, Beattie, Harris, and several others, have 
assigned it the name of the preterite definite, and / wrote 
they have termed the preterite indefinite. Browne, and one 
or two others, have reversed this denomination. Now, that 
I wrote does not of itself define what part of past time is 
specified, appears to me very evident. This is, indeed, ad- 
mitted by those who contend for the definite nature of this 
tense. Why, then, do they call it a definite tense ? Because, 
they say, it admits a definitive term, by the aid of which it 
expresses the precise time, as, " I wrote yesterday," " a 
week ago," " last month ;" whereas we cannot say, " I have 
written yesterday." Now, as I remarked before, this appears 
to me a perversion of language ; for we do not denominate 
that term definite, which requires a definitive to render it 
precise. Why have the terms the, this, that, been called 
definitives ? Is it because they admit a defining term ? or 
is it not because they limit or define the import of general 
terms ? I concur, therefore, with the author of the article 
" Aorist," in the " Nouvelle Encyclopedic," when he ridi- 
cules a M. Demandre for giving the character of definite to 
a tense which marks past time indefinitely. This certainly 
is a perversion of terms. 

" When we make use of the auxiliary verb," says Dr. 
Priestley, " we have no idea of any certain portion of time 



118 ETYMOLOGY. 

intervening between the time of action and the time of speak- 
ing of it ; the time of action being some period that extends 
to the present, as, ' I have this year, this morning, written,' 
spoken in the same year, the same morning ; whereas, speak- 
ing of an action done in a period past, we use the preterite 
tense and say, ' I wrote,' intimating that a certain portion of 
time is past, between the time of action and the time of 
speaking of it." To the same purpose nearly are the words 
of the author of the article " Grammar," in the " Encyclo- 
pedia Britannica." " / have written" says he, " is always 
joined with a portion of time which includes the present 
now or instant; for otherwise it could not signify, as it 
always does, the present possession of the finishing of an 
action. But the aorist, which signifies no such possession, 
is as constantly joined with a portion of past time, which 
excludes the present now or instant. Thus we say, c I have 
written a letter this day,' ' this week,' &c, but ' / wrote a 
letter yesterday ; ' and to interchange these expressions would 
be improper." 

The explanation which these grammarians have given of 
the tense i" have written, appears to me perfectly correct, and 
I would add, that, though the interval between the time of 
action and the time of speaking of it may be considerable ; 
yet, if the mind, in consequence of the effect's being ex- 
tended to the present time, should conceive no time to have 
intervened, this tense is uniformly employed. 

That the aorist excludes the present instant is equally 
true : but that it is incapable of being joined, as the latter 
of these grammarians supposes, to a portion of time part of 
which is not yet elapsed, is an assertion by no means correct ; 
for I can say, u I wrote to-day," or " this day," as well as, 
" / have written" " I dined to-day," says Swift, " with Mr. 
Secretary St. John." " I took some good walks in the park 
to-day." " I walked purely to-day about the park." " I 
was this morning with Mr. Secretary about some business." 
Numberless other examples might be produced in which this 
tense is joined with a portion of time not wholly elapsed. 

What then, it may be asked, is the difference between this 
and the tense which is termed the preterite definite ? I shall 



ETYMOLOGY. 119 

endeavour to explain it, though, in doing this, I may be 
chargeable with repetition. 

When an action is done in a time continuous to the pre- 
sent instant, we employ the auxiliary verb. Thus on finish- 
ing a letter I say, " I have written my letter," " / possess 
(now) the finished action of writing a letter." 

Again : When an action is done in a space of time which 
the mind assumes as present, or when we express our imme- 
diate possession of things done in that space, we use the 
auxiliary verb. " I have this week written several letters." 
" I have now the perfection of writing several letter 's, finished 
this week." a 

Again : When an action has been done long ago, but the 
mind is still in possession of its consequences, these having 
been extended to the present time, unconscious or regardless 
of the interval between the time of acting and the time of 
speaking, we use the auxiliary verb. Thus, " I, like others, 
have, in my youth, trifled with my health, and old age now 
prematurely assails me." In all these cases, there is a clear 
reference to present time. / have must imply present pos- 
session, and that the action, either as finished or proceeding, 
is present to the speaker. This must be admitted, unless we 
suppose that the term have has no appropriate or determi- 
nate meaning. 

On the other hand, the aorist excludes all idea of the pre- 
sent instant. It supposes an interval to have elapsed be- 
tween the time of the action and the time of speaking of it; 
the action is represented as leaving nothing behind it which 
the mind conceives to have any relation to its present circum- 
stances, as " Three days ago I lodged in the Strand." 

But, though it unquestionably excludes the present instant, 
or the moment of speaking, which the verb have embraces, 
yet it does not exclude that portion of present time which is 
represented as passing. All that is necessary to the use of 
this tense is, that the present now be excluded, that an in- 
terval have elapsed between the time of action and the time 

a These phraseologies, as the author last quoted justly observes, are 
harsh to the ear, and appear exceedingly awkward ; but a little attention 
will suffice to show that they correctly exhibit the ideas implied by the 
tense which we have at present under consideration. 



120 ETYMOLOGY. 

of speaking of it, and that these times shall not appear to be 
continuous. When Swift says, " It has snowed terribly all 
night, and is vengeance cold," it is to be observed, that 
though the former of these events took place in a time making 
no part of the day then passing, yet its effects extended to 
that day; he therefore employs the auxiliary verb. When 
he says, " I have been dining to-day at Lord Mountjoy's, 
and am come home to study," he, in like manner, connects 
the two circumstances as continuous. 

But when he says, " It snowed all this morning, and was 
some inches thick in three or four hours," it is to be observed 
that, contrary to the opinion of the author a I have quoted, 
he joins the aorist with a portion of time then conceived as 
present or passing, but the circumstances which had taken 
place were nowise connected with the time of his writing, 
or conceived as continuous to the date of his letter. If he 
had said, " It has snowed all this morning, and is now two 
inches thick," the two times would have appeared as conti- 
nuous, their events being connected as cause and effect. 

i" wrote I was writing I had written. 

The first of these, as a tense, has been already explained ; 
it remains, therefore, to inquire, whether it be definite or in- 
definite in respect to action. 

I observe, then, that a tense may frequently, by inference, 
denote the perfection of an action, and thus appear to be de- 
finite ; though, in its real import, it be significant neither of 
completion nor imperfection, and therefore, in regard to ac- 
tion, is indefinite. This seems to be the character of the 
tenses, / write, I wrote, I shall write. 

" Mr. Harris," says Browne, " truly calls / wrote and / 
write indefinites, although the man who wrote, has written r 
that is, the action is perfected, and the man who writes, is 
writing, that is, the action is imperfect ; but the perfection 
and imperfection, though it be implied, not being expressed, 
not being brought into view, (to do which the auxiliary verb 
is necessary,) nor intended to be so, such tenses are properly 
called indefinites." 

Though I am persuaded that Harris and Browne, though 
a See Encvc. Brit., Art. Grammar. 



ETYMOLOGY. 121 

they concur in designing certain tenses indefinite, are in prin- 
ciple by no means agreed, yet the observations of the latter, 
when he confines the terms to action, appear to me incontro- 
vertible. I would only remark, that it is not the presence of 
the auxiliary, as Browne conceives, which is necessary to 
denote the completion of the action, but the introduction of 
the perfect participle. Nay, I am persuaded, that, as it is 
the participle in ing, and this only, which denotes the pro- 
gression or continuation of the action, this circumstance in 
every other phraseology being inferred, not expressed, so I 
am equally convinced, that it is the perfect participle only 
which denotes the completion of the action ; and that, if any 
tense not compounded of this participle, express the same 
idea, it is by inference, and not directly. According to this 
view of the matter, a clear and simple analogy subsists among 
the tenses ; thus, 

First class, Second. Third. 

I write I am writing I have written 

I wrote I was writing I had written 

I shall write I shall be writing I shall have written. 

Now, if the progression or the perfection of an action, as 
present, past, or future, be all the possible variations, and if 
these be expressed by the second and third classes, it follows 
that, if there be any precise distinction between these and 
the first class, or unless the latter be wholly supernumerary, 
it differs in this from the second and third, that while they 
express, either that the action is progressive, or that it is 
complete, the first has no reference to its perfection, or im- 
perfection. 

/ ivas writing. 

This tense, like I wrote, is, in point of time, indefinite ; but, 
in respect to action, it is definite. It denotes that an action 
was proceeding in a time past, which time must be defined 
by some circumstance expressed or understood. 

/ had written. 
This, as a tense, derives its character from the preterite of 
the verb to have, implying past possession. Had being an 



122 ETYMOLOGY. 






aorist, this tense, in regard to time, must therefore be inde- 
finite. In respect to action it is definite, implying, that the 
action was finished. As the aorist expresses time past, and 
by inference the perfection of the action, while the latter cir- 
cumstance is additionally denoted by the participle, this com- 
pound tense is employed to denote, that an action was per- 
fected before another action or event, now also past, took 
place. 

The character of the remaining tenses seems to require no 
farther explanation. I proceed therefore to consider how we 
express interrogations, commands, necessity, power, liberty, 
will, and some other accessary circumstances. 

An interrogation is expressed by placing the nominative 
after the concordant person of the tense ; thus, " Thou 
comest" is an affirmation; " Comest thou?" is an interroga- 
tion. If the tense be compound, the nominative is placed 
after the auxiliary, as " Dost thou come?" " Hast thou 
heard?" 

A command, exhortation, or entreaty, is expressed by 
placing the pronoun of the second person after the simple 
form of the verb ; as, 

Write thou Write ye 

or or 

Do thou write Do ye write : 

and sometimes by the verb simply, the person being under- 
stood ; as, write, run, be, let a . By the help of the word let, 

a I consider that no language, grammatically examined, has more cases, 
tenses, or moods, than are formed by inflexion. But if any person be 
inclined to call these forms of expression by the name of imperative 
mood, I have no objection. Only let him be consistent, and call " Dost 
thou love?" an interrogative mood, adopting also the precative, the re- 
quisitive, the optative, the hortative, &c, together with the various cases 
in nouns, and tenses in verbs, which are formed by prepositions and 
auxiliary verbs : I should only apprehend, that language would fail him 
to assign them names. 

If it should be asked, " Agreeably to your doctrine of the verb, as im- 
plying affirmation, what part of speech would you make the verbs in the 
following sentences, Depart instantly, improve your time, forgive us our 
sins ? Will it be said that the verbs in these phrases are assertions ? 



> write 



> written. 



ETYMOLOGY. 123 

which is equivalent to " permit thou," or " permit ye," we 
express the persons of the Latin and Greek imperatives ; 
thus, let me, let us, let Mm, let them, write. 

Present necessity is denoted by the verb must, thus, 

I must Thou must He must 

We must Ye must They must 

This verb having only one tense, namely, the present, past 
necessity is expressed by the preterite definite of the verb, 
significant of the thing necessary, as, 

I must have Thou must have, &c, 

We must have Ye must have, &c. 

Present Liberty. 
I may Thou mayest He may 1 

-v m, ( Wn tO« 

We may Ye may They may J 

Past Liberty. 

I might Thou mightest He might 1 . 

We might Ye might They might J 

Or, 

I might have Thou mightest have, &c.-l 

■ . ° r written. 

We might have Ye might have, &c. J 

I should answer that all moods, metaphysically considered, are, in my 
apprehension, equally indicative. Every possible form of speech can do 
nothing but express the sentiment of the speaker, his desire, his wish, 
his sensation, his perception, his belief, &c. Whatever form, therefore, 
the expression may assume, it must be resolvable into assertion; and 
must be considered as expressing, in the person of the speaker, what he 
desires, wishes, feels, thinks, and so forth. No one surely will deny, 
that " thou oughtest not to kill," "thou shalt not kill," " thou art for- 
bidden to kill," are affirmations. And are not these expressions so 
nearly equivalent to " do not kill," that in Greek and Latin they are 
rendered indifferently either by ov <j)ovev<recs, or, fir) (froveve-, non occides, or 
ne occidito ? If then we say, " kill thou," will it be contended that, 
though the prohibition implies an affirmation of the speaker, the com- 
mand does not? The expression I conceive to be strictly equivalent to 
" thou shalt kill," "thou art ordered to kill." Hence ave and jubeo te 
avere, are deemed expressions of the same import. If the question be 
examined grammatically, or as a subject of pure grammar, I am inclined 
to think that where there is no variety of termination, there cannot be 
established a diversity of mood. 

a This verb is derived from the Saxon verb Ic most, ego debeo. 



124 



ETYMOLOGY. 



write. 



wnte. 



written. 



Present Ability. 
I can Thou canst He can 1 

We can Ye can They can J 

Past Ability. 

I could Thou couldst He could ) 

We could Ye could They could f 

Or, 

I could have Thou couldst have, &c. ) 

We could have Ye could have, &c. J 

Could, the preterite of the verb caw, expressing past power 
or ability, is, like the tense might of the verb may, frequently 
employed to denote present time. Of their denoting past 
time the following may serve as examples. 

" Can you construe Lycophron now? No; but once I 
could." 

" May you speak your sentiments freely ? No ; but once 
I might." 

That they likewise denote present time, I have already 
adduced sufficient evidence. Might and could, being fre- 
quently used in conjunction with other verbs, to express pre- 
sent time, past liberty and ability are generally denoted by 
the latter phraseology ; thus, " I might have written," " I 
could have written." Some farther observations respecting 
the nature of these tenses I purpose to make, when I come 
to consider what has been termed the subjunctive or con- 
junctive mood. 

Present Duty or Obligation. 
I ought Thou oughtest He ought 

We ought Ye ought They ought 

Past Duty. 
I ought Thou oughtest He ought 1 to have 

We ought Ye ought They ought J written. 

The same is expressed by the verb should. Ought being now 
always considered as a present tense, past duty is expressed 
by taking the preterite definitive of the following verb. 

Having shown how most of the common accessary circum- 
stances are signified in our language, I proceed to explain 



[ to 



wnte. 



[■ written to. 
> written to. 



ETYMOLOGY. 125 

how we express the circumstance of suffering, or being acted 
upon. 

The manner of denoting this in English is simple and easy. 
All that is necessary is to join the verb to be with the present 
participle, if the state of suffering be imperfect or proceeding ; 
and with the perfect participle, if it be complete ; thus, 

I am Thou art He is ) 

w -XT r™ f written to. 

We are Ye are They are J 

Preterite. 

I was Thou wast He was 

We were Ye were They were 

I have been I had been I shall be 

I may be I might be I could be 

If the state be imperfect, the participle in ing must be sub- 
stituted ; thus, 

The house is building ) 

The house was building > Progressive. 

The house shall be building ) 

The house is built ) 

The house was built > Perfect. 

The house shall be built ) 

Neuter verbs, expressing neither action nor passion, admit, 
without altering their signification, either phraseology ; thus, 
/ have arisen, or i" am arisen ; / was come, or I had come. 

I conclude this part of the subject with a few observations 
concerning the subjunctive or potential mood. 

Various disputes have arisen respecting the existence and 
the use of this mood ; nor is there, perhaps, any other point 
in grammar, on which respectable authorities are so much 
divided. 

That there is not in English, as in Latin, a potential mood 
properly so called, appears to me unquestionable. Amarem 
signifies ability or liberty 51 , involving the verbs possum and 

a It belongs not to my province to inquire, how amarem came to signify 
I might or could love, or whether it be strictly in the potential or the sub- 
junctive mood. I here take it for granted that amarem does, without an 
ellipsis, signify, I might, could, would, or should love, implying licet, 
possum, volo, debeo See Johnsons Comment. 



126 ETYMOLOGY. 

licet, and may therefore be termed a potential mood ; but in 
English these accessary circumstances are denoted by the pre- 
terites of the verbs may and can ; as, / might or could love. 

That there is no subjunctive mood, we have, I conceive, 
equal authority to assert. If T say in Latin, cum cepisset, 
" when he had taken," the verb is strictly in the subjunctive 
mood ; for, were not the verb subjoined to cum, it must have 
taken the indicative form ; but I hesitate not to assert, that 
no example can be produced in English, where the indicative 
form is altered merely because the verb is preceded by some 
conjunctive particle. If we say, " though he were rich, he 
would not despise the poor," was is not here turned into were 
-because subjoined to though ; for though is joined to the in- 
dicative mood, when the sentiment requires it ; the verb there- 
fore is not in the subjunctive mood. 

In respect to what has been denominated the conditional 
form of the verb, I observe, that the existence of this form 
appears to me highly questionable. My reasons are these : 

1st. Several of our grammarians have not mentioned it ; 
among these are the celebrated Dr. Wallis, and the author of 
the British Grammar. 

2dly. Those, who admit it, are not agreed concerning its 
extent. Lowth and Johnson confine it to the present tense, 
while Priestley extends it to the preterite. 

3dly. The example which Priestley adduces of the condi- 
tional preterite, if thou drew, with a few others which might 
be mentioned, are acknowledged by himself to be so stiff and 
so harsh, that I am inclined to regard them rather as anoma- 
lies, than as constituting an authority for a general rule. 

4thly. If then this form be, agreeably to the opinions of 
Lowth and Johnson, confined to the present tense, I must 
say that I have not been able to find a single example, in 
which the present conditional, as it is termed, is anything 
but an ellipsis of the auxiliary verb. 

5thly. Those who admit this mood make it nothing but the 
plural number of the correspondent indicative tense without 
variation; as I love, thou love, he love, &c. Now as this is, 
in fact, the radical form of the verb, or what may be deemed 
the infinitive, as following an auxiliary, it forms a pre- 



ETYMOLOGY. 127 

sumption that it is truly an infinitive mood, the auxiliary 
being suppressed. 

The opinion here given will, I think, be confirmed by the 
following examples. 

" If he say so, it is well," i. e. " if he shall say so." 

" Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him," {Bible) i. e. 
" though he should slay." 

"Though thou detain me, I will not eat," (Ibid) i. e. 
" shouldst detain me." 

" If thy brother trespass against thee," (Ibid.) i. e. " should 
trespass." 

" Though he fall, he shall not utterly be cast down," (Ibid) 
i. e. " though he should fall." 

" Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day," (Ibid.) 
i. e. " thou shouldst keep." 

There are a few examples in the use of the auxiliaries do 
and have, in which, when the ellipsis is supplied, the ex- 
pression appears somewhat uncouth; but I am persuaded 
that a little attention will show, that these examples form no 
exception to this theory. 

" If now thou do prosper my way." — Bible. It is here 
obvious, that the event supposed was future ; the appropriate 
term, therefore, to express that idea, is either shall or will. 
If the phrase were, " if thou prosper my way," it would be 
universally admitted that the auxiliary is suppressed, thus, 
" if thou shalt or wilt prosper my way." Again, when we 
say, " if thou do it, I shall be displeased," it is equally evi- 
dent that the auxiliary is understood, thus, " if thou shalt do 
it." Now, if these examples be duly considered, and if the 
import of the verb to do, as formerly explained, be remem- 
bered, I think it will appear that the expression is elliptical, 
and truly proceeds thus, " if thou (shalt) do prosper my way." 
The same observations are applicable to Shakspeare's phrase- 
ology, when he says, " if thou do pardon, whosoever pray." 
Again ; when Hamlet says, " if damned custom have not 
brazed it so," it is obvious that the auxiliary verb may is 
understood ; for, if the expression be cleared of the nega- 
tive, the insertion of the auxiliary creates no uncouthness ; 
thus, " if damned custom may have brazed it so." 



128 ETYMOLOGY. 






I am therefore inclined to think, that the conditional form, 
unless in the verb to be*, has no existence in our language. 

Though this be not strictly the proper place, I would beg 
the reader's attention to a few additional observations. 

Many writers of classic eminence express future and con- 
tingent events by the present tense indicative. In colloquial 
language, or where the other form would render the ex- 
pression stiff and awkward, this practice cannot justly be 
reprehended. But where this is not the case, the proper 
form, in which the note of contingency or futurity is either 
expressed or understood, is certainly preferable. Thus, 

" If thou neglectest, or doest unwillingly, what I com- 
mand thee, I will rack thee with old cramps." — Shakspeare. 
Better, I think, " if thou shalt neglect or do." 

" If any member absents himself, he shall forfeit a penny 
for the use of the club."— Spectator. Better, "if any mem- 
ber absent, or shall absent." 

" If the stage becomes a nursery of folly and impertinence, 
I shall not be afraid to animadvert upon it." — Spectator. 
Preferably thus, " If the stage become, or shall become." 

I observe also, that there is something peculiar and de- 
serving attention in the use of the preterite tense b . To illus- 
trate the remark, I shall take the following case. A servant 
calls on me for a book ; if I am uncertain whether I have it 
or not, I answer, " if the book be in my library, or if I have 
the book, your master shall be welcome to it:" but if I am 
certain that I have not the book, I say, " if the book were 
in my library, or if I had the book, it should be at your mas- 
ter's service." Here it is obvious that when we use the 
present tense it implies uncertainty of the fact ; and when 
we use the preterite, it implies a negation of its existence. 
Thus also, a person at night would say to his friend, " if it 
rain, you shall not go," being uncertain at the time whether 
it did or did not rain ; but if, on looking out, he perceived it 
did not rain, he would then say, " if it rained, you should 
not go," intimating that it did not rain. 

" Nay, and the villains march wide between the legs, as if 

a Why this verb forms an exception, it would be easy to explain. 
b See Webster's Dissertations, p. 263. 



ETYMOLOGY. 129 

they had gyves on." — Shakspeare. Where as if they had 
implies that " they had not." 

In the same manner, if I say, " I will go, if I can," my 
ability is expressed as uncertain, and its dependent event 
left undetermined. But if I say, " I would go, if I could,' 
my inability is expressly implied, and the dependent event 
excluded. Thus also, when it is said, " if I may, I will ac- 
company you to the theatre," the liberty is expressed as 
doubtful ; but when it is said, " if I might, I would accom- 
pany you," the liberty is represented as not existing. 

In thus expressing the negation of the attribute, the con- 
junction is often omitted, and the order inverted ; thus, " if 
I had the book," or " had I the book." " Were I Alexander," 
said Parmenio, " I would accept this offer;" or, "if I were 
Alexander, I would accept." Were is frequently used for 
would be, and had for would have ; as, " it were injustice to 
deny the execution of the law to any individual;" that is, 
" it would be injustice." " Many acts, which had been 
blameable in a peaceable government, were employed to 
detect conspiracies;" where had is put for would have*. — 
Humes History of England. 

Ambiguity is frequently created by confounding fact with 
hypothesis, or making no distinction between dubitative and 
assertive phraseologies. Thus, if we employ such expres- 
sions as these, " if thou knewest," " though he was learned," 
not only to express the certainty of a fact, but likewise to 
denote a mere hypothesis as opposed to fact, we necessarily 
render the expression ambiguous. It is by thus confounding 
things totally distinct, that writers have been betrayed not 
into ambiguity only, but even into palpable errors. In evi- 
dence of this, I give the following example : " Though he 
were divinely inspired, and spoke therefore as the oracles of 
God, with supreme authority ; though he were endowed with 
supernatural powers, and could, therefore, have confirmed the 
truth of what he asserted by miracles ; yet in compliance 
with the way in which human nature and reasonable crea- 

a A similar phraseology in the use of the pluperfect indicative for the 
same tense subjunctive, obtains in Latin, as 

" Impulerat ferro Argolicas fbedare latebras." — Virgil. 

K 



130 ETYMOLOGY. 

tures are usually wrought upon, he reasoned." — Aiterburifs 
Sermons. 

Here the writer expresses the inspiration and the super- 
natural powers of Jesus, not as properties or virtues which 
he really did possess, but which, though not possessing them, 
he might be supposed to possess. Now, as his intention was 
to ascribe these virtues to Jesus, as truly belonging to him, he 
should have employed the indicative form was, and not were, 
as in the following sentence : "though he was rich, yet for 
our sakes he became poor." " Though he were rich," would 
imply the non-existence of the attribute ; in other words, 
" that he was not rich." 

A very little attention would serve to prevent these am- 
biguities and errors. If the attribute be conceived as uncon- 
ditionally certain, the indicative form without ellipsis must 
be employed, as, " I teach," " I had taught," " I shall teach." 
If futurity, hypothesis, or uncertainty, be intended, with the 
concessive term, the auxiliary may be either expressed or 
understood, as perspicuity may require, and the taste and 
judgment of the writer may dictate ; thus, " if any man teach 
strange doctrines, he shall be severely rebuked." In the 
former clause the auxiliary verb shall is unnecessary, and is 
therefore, without impropriety, omitted. " Then hear thou in 
heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people 
Israel, that thou teach them the good way wherein they 
should walk." — Bible. In this example the suppression of the 
auxiliary verb is somewhat unfavourable to perspicuity, and 
renders the clause stiff and awkward. It would be better, I 
think, " thou mayest teach them the good way." Harshness, 
indeed, and the appearance of affectation, should be par- 
ticularly avoided. Where there is no manifest danger of 
misconception, the use of the assertive for the dubitative form 
is far preferable to those starched and pedantic phraseologies 
which some writers are fond of exhibiting. For this reason, 
such expressions as the following appear to me highly offen- 
sive : " if thou have determined, we must submit ;" " unless 
he have consented, the writing will be void;" "if this 
have been the seat of their original formation;" "unless 
thou shall speak, we cannot determine." The last I eonsider 



ETYMOLOGY. 131 

as truly ungrammatical. In such cases, if the dubitative 
phraseology should appear to be preferable, the stiffness and 
affectation here reprehended may frequently be prevented by 
inserting the note of doubt or contingency. 

I observe farther, that the substitution of as for if when 
the affirmation is unconditional, will often serve to prevent 
ambiguity a . Thus, when the ant in the fable says to the 
grasshopper who had trifled away the summer in singing, 
" if you sung in summer, dance in winter ;" as the first clause, 
taken by itself, leaves the meaning somewhat ambiguous, " as 
you sung," would be the better expression. 



IRREGULAR VERBS. 

The general rule for the formation of the preterite tense, and 
the perfect participle, is to add to the present the syllable ed, 
if the verb end with a consonant, or d, if it end with a 
vowel, as 

Turn, Turned, Turned ; Love, Loved, Loved. 
Verbs, which depart from this rule, are called irregular, of 
which I believe the subsequent enumeration to be nearly 
completed 



Present. 


Preterite. 


Perfect Participle. 


Abide 




Abode 


Abode 


Am 




Was 


Been 


Arise 




Arose 


Arisen 


Awake 




Awoke R 


Awaked 


Bake 




Baked 


Baken r 


Bear, to 


bring forth Bore, or Bear 


Born c 


Bear, to 


carry 


Bore, or Bear 


Borne 


Beat 




Beat 


Beaten 


Begin 




Began 


Begun 



a The Latins used si in both cases : and though their poets did not at- 
tend to this distinction, their prose writers generally observed it, by join- 
ing si for quoniam with the indicative mood. 

b Where r is added, the verb follows also the general rule. 
c Some have excluded bore as the preterite of this verb. We have suf- 
ficient authority, however, for admitting it; thus, 

" By marrying her who bore me." — Dryden. 

K 2 



132 


ETYMOLOGY. 




Present. 


Preterite. 


Perfect Participle. 


Become 


Became 


Become 


Behold 


Beheld 


Beheld, or Be 
holden a 


Bend 


Bent R 


Bent R 


Bereave 


Bereft r 


Bereft R 


Beseech 


Besought 


Besought 


Bid 


Bade, or Bid 


Bidden 


Bind 


Bound 


Bound 


Bite 


Bit 


Bitten, Bit b 


Bleed 


Bled 


Bled 


Blow 


Blew 


Blown 


Break 


Broke, or Brake 


Broken 


Breed 


Bred 


Bred 


Bring 


Brought 


Brought 


Build 


Built R 


Built d R 


Burst 


Burst 


Burst 


Buy 


Bought 


Bought 


Can 


Could 




Cast 


Cast 


Cast 


Catch 


Caught R 


Caught R 


Chide 


Chid e 


Chidden 


Choose 


Chose 


Chosen 


Cleave, to stick or 


Clave R 


Cleaved 


adhere 






Cleave, to split 


Clove, or Clave, 
Cleft 


or Cloven, or Cleft 


Cling 


Clung 


Clung 


Climb 


Clomb f R 


Climbed 



a Beholden is obsolescent in this sense. 

b " So kept the diamond, and the rogue was bit." — Pope. 
" There was lately a young gentleman bit to the bone." — Tatler. 

c Brake seems now obsolescent. 

d Though Johnson has not admitted the regular form of the participle 
in this verb, I think there is sufficient authority for concurring with Lowth 
in receiving builded as the participle as well as built, though it be not in 
such general use. 

e Chode, which occurs twice in the Bible, is now obsolete. 

f Lowth has given clomb as the preterite of climb. I can find, how- 
ever, no authority later than Spenser, and am inclined to think it is now 
obsolete. 





ETYMOLOGY. 




Present. 


Preterite. 


Perfect Participle. 


Clothe 


Clad a R 


CladR 


Come 


Came 


Come 


Cost 


Cost 


Cost 


Crow 


Crew R 


Crowed 


Creep 


Crept 


Crept 


Cut 


Cut 


Cut 


Dare, to venture 


Durst R 


Dared 


Dare, to challenge. 


, is regular. 




Deal 


Dealt R 


Dealt R 


Dig 


Dug R 


Dug R 


Do 


Did 


Done 


Draw- 


Drew 


Drawn 


Drive 


Drove 


Driven 


Drink 


Drank 


Drunk 


Dwell 


Dwelt R 


Dwelt R 


Eat 


Ate 


Eaten 


Fall 


Fell 


Fallen 


Feed 


Fed 


Fed 


Feel 


Felt 


Felt 


Fight 


Fought 


Fought 


Find 


Found 


Found 


Flee 


Fled 


Fled 


Fly 


Flew 


Flown 


Fling 


Flung 


Flung 


Forget 


Forgot 


Forgotten 


Forgo b 




Forgone 


Forsake 


Forsook 


Forsaken 


Freeze 


Froze 


Frozen 


Freight 


Freighted 


Freighted, or 
Fraught 


Get 


Gat, or Got 


Gotten, or Got 



133 



a The irregular preterite clad is obsolescent. 

b I know no example in which the preterite, which analogically would 
be forwent, is to be found. It may be here remarked that this verb, in 
violation of analogy, is generally spelled forego, as if it meant " to go be- 
fore." This is equally improper as it would be to write forebid,foresake, 
foreswear, for forbid, forsake, forswear. 

c Fraught is more properly an adjective than participle. 



134 

Present. 
Gild 
Gird 
Give 
Go 

Grave 
Grind 
Grow 
Have 
Hang a 
Hear 
Heave 
Help 
Hew 
Hide 
Hit 
Hold 
Hurt 
Keep 
Kneel 
Knit 
Know 



a This verb, Lowth says, when employed as an active verb, "may 
perhaps, most properly be used in the regular form." Here the learned 
author appears to me, if he be not chargeable with error, to have ex- 
pressed his meaning incorrectly; for it cannot be disputed that the irre- 
gular form of this verb is frequently, and with unquestionable propriety, 
used in an active sense. Thus we say, " the servant hung the scales in 
the cellar;" and passively, "the scales were hung by the servant." I 
should, therefore, rather say that, when this verb denotes suspension, for 
the purpose of destroying life, the regular form is far preferable. Thus, 
" the man was hanged," not " hung." 

b The irregular preterite and participle of this verb are employed in 
sea language ; but the latter rarely. 

c Lowth has given holpen as the participle ; it is now obsolescent, 
if not obsolete. It belonged to the verb to kolp, which has been long out 
of use. 

d Several grammarians have rejected hid as a participle. It rests, how- 
ever, on unquestionable authority ; but hidden is preferable. 

e Holden, which was some years ago obsolescent, is now returning into 
more general use. 



Preterite. 


Perfect Participle. 


GildR 


Gilt R 


Girt r 


Girt R 


Gave 


Given 


Went 


Gone 


Graved 


Graven r 


Ground 


Ground 


Grew 


Grown 


Had 


Had 


Hung r 


Hung r 


Heard 


Heard 


Hove b R 


Hoven R 


Helped 


Holpen c R 


Hewed 


Hewn R 


Hid 


Hidden d , or Hid 


Hit 


Hit 


Held 


Holden e , or Held 


Hurt 


Hurt 


Kept 


Kept 


Knelt 


Knelt 


Knit, or Knitted 


Knit, or Knitted 


Knew 


Known 








ETYMOLOGY. 


135 


Present. 


Preterite. Perfect Participle. 


Lade 


Laded 


Laden a 


Lay 


Laid 


Laid b 


Lead 


Led 


Led 


Leave 


Left 


Left 


Lend 


Lent 


Lent 


Let 


Let 


Let 


Lie, to lie down 


Lay 


Lien, or Lain c 


Lift 


Lifted, or Lift 


Lifted, or Lift 


Light 


Lighted, or Lit d 


Lighted, or Lit 


Load 


Loaded 


Loaden, or Loaded 


Lose 


Lost 


Lost 


Make 


Made 


Made 


May 


Might 




Mean 


Meant R 


Meant R 


Meet 


Met 


Met 


Mow 


Mowed 


Mown e R 


Must 






Pay 


Paid 


Paid 


Put 


Put 


Put 


Quit 


Quit, or Quitted f 


Quit 


Read 


Read 


Read 


Rend 


Rent 


Rent 


Ride 


Rode, or Rid 


Rids, or Ridden 



a Laden, like fraught, may be deemed an adjective. 

b Priestley, I apprehend, has erred in giving lain as the participle of 
this verb. 

c Lien, though not so generally used as lain, is not destitute of unex- 
ceptionable authority. I have, therefore, with Johnson and Lowth, given 
it as the participle. Murray has omitted it. 

d Some grammarians have rejected lit. It can plead, however, collo- 
quial usage in i^s favour, and even other authority. " I lit my pipe with 
the paper." — Addison. 

e With Priestley and Lowth, I have given this verb a regular parti- 
ciple ; for which, I believe, there is sufficient authority, without adducing 
the example of Shakspeare. Most other grammarians have rejected it. 

f Quitted is far more generally used as the preterite than quit. 

E Priestley has rejected rid, and Murray ridden, as the participle, while 
Johnson makes rid the preterite of ride. As rid is the present and pre- 
terite of another verb, it would, perhaps, be better to dismiss it entirely 
from the verb to ride, and conjugate, with Priestley, ride, rode, ridden. 



136 

Present. 
Rid 
Ring 
Rise 
Rive 
Roast 
Rot 
Run 
Saw 
Say 
See 
Seek 
Seethe 
Sell 
Send 
Set 
Shake 
Shall 
Shape 
Shave 
Shear 
Shed 
Shine 
Shew 
Show 
Shoe 
Shoot 
Shrink 
Shred 
Shut 

a Our translators of the Bible have used roast as the perfect participle. 
In this sense it is almost obsolete. Roast beef retains its ground. 

b Story, in his Grammar, has most unwarrantably asserted, that the 
participle of this verb should be shaked. This word is certainly obsolete, 
and, I apprehend, was never in general use. I have been able to find only 
one example of shaked as the participle, " A sly and constant knave, not 
to be shaked." — Shakspeare. And two as the preterite, " They shaked 
their heads." — Psal. cxi. 55. "I shaked my head." — Steele, Spectator, 
No. iv. 

c Of these preterites, the latter is now more generally used. Our 
translators of the Bible used the former. 



ETYMOLOGY. 




Preterite. 


Perfect Participle. 


Rid 




Rid 


Rang, or Rung 


Rung 


Rose 




Risen 


Rived 




Riven 


Roasted 




Roasted, or Roast a 


Rotted 




Rotten r 


Ran 




Run 


Sawed 




Sawn R 


Said 




Said 


Saw 




Seen 


Sought 




Sought 


Seethed, or 


Sod 


Sodden 


Sold 




Sold 


Sent 




Sent 


Set 




Set 


Shook 




Shaken b 


Should 






Shaped 




Shapen R 


Shaved 




Shaven R 


Shore 




Shorn 


Shed 




Shed 


Shone R 




Shone R 


Shewed 




Shewn 


Showed 




Shown 


Shod 




Shod 


Shot 




Shot 


Shrank c , or 


Shrunk 


Shrunk 


Shred 




Shred 


Shut 




Shut 





ETYMOLOGY. 




Present. 


Preterite. 


Perfect Participle. 


Sing 


Sang a , or Sung 


Sung 


Sink 


Sank, or Sunk 


Sunk 


Sit 


Sat 


Sitten b , or Sat 


Slay 


Slew 


Slain 


Sleep 


Slept 


Slept 


Slide 


Slid 


Slidden 


Sling 


Slang, or Slung 


Slung 


Slink 


Slank, or Slunk 


Slunk 


Slit 


Slit r 


Slit, or Slitted 


Smite 


Smote 


Smitten 


Sow- 


Sowed 


Sown R 


Speak 


Spoke, or Spake 


Spoken 


Speed 


Sped 


Sped 


Spend 


Spent 


Spent 


Spill 


Spilt R 


Spilt R 


Spin 


Spun, or Span 


Spun 


Spit 


Spat, or Spit 


Spitten, or Spit 


Split 


Split, or Splitted 


Split, Splitted 


Spread 


Spread 


Spread 


Spring 


Sprang, or Sprung Sprung 


Stand 


Stood 


Stood 


Steal 


Stole 


Stolen 


Stick 


Stuck 


Stuck 


Sting 


Stung 


Stung 


Stink 


Stank, or Stunk 


Stunk 



137 



a A. Murray has rejected sung as the preterite, and L. Murray has re- 
jected sang. Each preterite, however, rests on good authority. 

The same observation may be made respecting sank and sunk. 

b Sitten, though formerly in use, is now obsolescent. Laudable at- 
tempts, however, have been made to restore it. " To have sitten on the 
heads of the apostles." — Middleion. 

" Soon after the termination of this business, the parliament, which had 
now sitten three years," &c Belsham's Hist. 

" And he would gladly, for the sake of dispatch, have called together 
the same parliament, which had sitten under his father." — Hume, vol. vi. 
p. 199. 

Respecting the preterites which have a or u, as slang, or slung, sank, 
or sunk, it would be better were the former only to be used, as the pre- 
terite and participle would thus be discriminated. 



138 


ETYMOLOGY. 




Present. 


Preterite. 


Perfect Participle. 


Stride 


Strode, or Strove 


Stridden 


Strike 


Struck 


Struck, or Stricken 


String 


Strung 


Strung 


Strive 


Strove 


Striven 


Strew, or Strow 


Strewed, or ) 
Strowed J 


Strown 


Swear 


Swore, or Sware 


Sworn 


Sweat 


Sweat 


Sweat 


Sweep 


Swept 


Swept 


Swell 


Swelled 


Swelled, or Swollen 


Swim 


Swam, or Swum 


Swum 


Swing 


Swang 


Swung 


Take 


Took 


Taken 


Teach 


Taught 


Taught 


Tear 


Tore, or Tare 


Torn 


Tell 


Told 


Told 


Think 


Thought 


Thought 


Thrive 


Throve a 


Thriven 


Throw 


Through 


Thrown 


Thrust 


Thrust 


Thrust 


Tread 


Trod 


Trodden 


Wax 


Waxed 


Waxen R 


Wash 


Washed 


Washed b 


Wear 


Wore 


Worn 


Weave 


Wove 


Woven 


Weep 


Wept 


Wept 


Will 


Would 




Win 


Won 


Won 


Wind 


Wound c R 


Wound 



a Pope has used the regular form of the preterite : 
•' In the fat age of pleasure, wealth, and ease, 

Sprung the rank weed, and thrived with large increase." 

Essay on Crit. 
Horsley, with one or two other writers, have employed the regular par- 
ticiple. 

b Washen seems obsolescent, if not obsolete. The compound unwashen 
occurs in our translation of the Bible. 

c Pope, and our translators of the Bible, have used winded as the pre- 
terite. The other form, however, is in far more general use. 





ETYMOLOGY. 




Present. 


Preterite. 


Perfect Participlt 


Work 


Wrought R 


Wrought R 


Wring 


Wrung r 


Wrung 


Write 


Wrote 


Written 3 


Writhe 


Writhed 


Writhen. 



139 



DEFECTIVE VERBS. 

These, as Lowth observes, are generally not only defective, 
but also irregular, and are chiefly auxiliary verbs. 

Perfect Participle. 



Present. 


Preterite, 


Must 






May 




Might 


Quoth 




Quoth 


Can 




Could 


Shall 




Should 


Wit b , or 


Wot 


Wot 


Will 




Would 


Wis d 




Wist 


Ought e 







a Wrote, as the participle, is generally disused, and likewise writ. The 
latter was used as a preterite by Pope, Swift, and other writers of the 
same period. 

b Wit is now confined to the phrase to wit, or namely. It is an abbre- 
viation from the Anglo-Saxon verb pitan, to know. 

c This verb, as an auxiliary, is inflexible; thus we say, " he will go," 
and " he wills to go." 

d This verb, which signifies " to think," or "to imagine," is now 
obsolete. 

e This verb is now used as significant of present duty. It was origin- 
ally the preterite, and the perfect participle of the verb to owe ; and is 
corruptedly used in Scotland still to express a past debt. " Apprehend- 
ing the occasion, I will add a continuance to that happy motion, and 
besides give you some tribute of the love and duty I long have ought 
you." — Spelman. 

" This blood, which men by treason sought, 

That followed, sir, which to myself I ought." — Dryden. 

It is now used in the present tense only ; and, when past duty or obli- 
gation is to be signified, we note, as I formerly mentioned, the past time 



140 ETYMOLOGY. 






OF IMPERSONAL VERBS. 

The distinctive character of impersonal verbs has been a 
subject of endless dispute among grammarians. Some deny 
their existence in the learned languages, and others as 
positively assert it. Some define them to be verbs devoid 
of the two first persons ; but this definition is evidently in- 
correct : for, as Perizonius and Frischlinus observe, this may 
be a reason for calling them defective, but not for naming 
them impersonal verbs. Others have defined them to be 
verbs, to which no certain person, as the subject, can be pre- 
fixed. But with the discussion of this question, as it respects 

by the preterite sense of the subsequent verb; thus, " I ought to read," 
" I ought to have read." The classical scholar knows that the reverse 
takes place in Latin. Debeo legere, debut legere. Cicero, however, 
though very rarely indeed, uses the preterite of the infinitive after the 
preterite tense of this verb. 

Murray has told us, that must and ought have both a present and past 
signification, and, in proof of this, he adduces the following examples : — 
" I must own, that I am to blame." " He must have been mistaken." 
" Speaking things which they ought not." " These ought ye to have 
done." This is truly a strange, and, I verily believe, a singular opinion. 
Its inaccuracy is so manifest, that every reader of discernment must in- 
tuitively perceive it. The opinion itself, indeed, is not more surprising, 
than the ground on which it is maintained by the author. It surely re- 
quires but a moderate portion of sagacity to perceive, that the past time, 
in the second and fourth examples, is not denoted by must and ought, 
but by the expressions " have been " and " have done." In Latin, as I 
have just observed, necessity and duty are expressed as either present, 
past, or future, the verbs denoting these having the three correspondent 
tenses ; and the object of the necessity or duty is expressed as contem- 
porary, or relatively present. In English, on the contrary, the two verbs 
must and ought having only the present tense, we are obliged to note the 
past time by employing the preterite tense of the subsequent verb. Thus, 
Me ire oportet, " I ought to go," " I must go." Me ire oportuit, " I 
ought to have gone," " I must have gone." As well may it be affirmed, 
that the past time is denoted by ire and not oportuit, as that it is signified 
by must and not by " have gone." 

In the time of Wallis, the term must, as a preterite tense, was almost 
obsolete. " Aliquando," he remarks, " sed rarius in prceterito dicitur." 
And when it was employed as a preterite, it was followed by the present 
tense. This verb in German has, I understand, a preterite tense. 



ETYMOLOGY. 141 

the learned languages, the English grammarian has no concern. 
I proceed, therefore, to observe, that impersonal verbs, as the 
name imports, are those which do not admit a person as their 
nominative. Their real character seems to be, that they 
assert the existence of some action or state, but refer it to 
no particular subject. In English we have very few imper- 
sonal verbs. To this denomination, however, may certainly 
be referred, it behoveth, it irketh ; equivalent to, it is the 
duty, it is painfully wearisome. That the former of these 
verbs was once used personally, we have sufficient evidence ; 
and it is not improbable that the latter also was so employed, 
though I have not been able to find an example of its 
junction with a person. They are now invariably used as 
impersonal verbs. We cannot say, / behove, thou behovest, 
he behoves ; we irk, ye irk, they irk. 

There are one or two others, which have been considered 
as impersonal verbs, in which the personal pronoun in the 
objective case is prefixed to the third person singular of the 
verb, as methinks, methought, meseems, meseemed ; analo- 
gous to the Latin expressions me pcenitet, me pcenituit. 
You thinketh, him Uketh, him seemeth, have long been 
entirely obsolete. Meseems and meseemed occur in Sidney, 
Spenser, and other contemporary writers; but are now uni- 
versally disused. Addison sometimes says methoughts, con- 
trary, I conceive, to all analogy. 



142 ETYMOLOGY. 






CHAPTER VII. 



OF ADVERBS. 



An adverb is that part of speech which is joined to a verb, 
adjective, or other adverb, to express some circumstance, 
quality, degree, or manner of its signification ; and hence 
adverbs have been termed attributives of the second order. 

" As the attributives hitherto mentioned," says Mr. Harris, 
" viz. adjective and verb, denote the attributes of substances, 
so there is an inferior class of them, which denote the at- 
tributes only of attributes. If I say, ' Cicero was eloquent,' 
I ascribe to him the attribute of eloquence simply and ab- 
solutely; if I say, ' he was exceedingly eloquent,' I affirm 
an eminent degree of eloquence, the adverb exceedingly 
denoting that degree. If I say, ' he died, fighting bravely 
for his country, 1 the word bravely here added to the verb 
denotes the manner of the action." An adverb is, therefore, 
a word joined to a verb, or any attributive, to denote some 
modification, degree, or circumstance, of the expressed at- 
tribute. 

Adverbs have been divided into a variety of classes, ac- 
cording to their signification. Some of those which denote 

Quality simply, are, Well, ill, bravely, prudently, softly, with 
innumerable others formed from adjectives 
and participles. 

Certainty or r Verily, truly, undoubtedly, yea, yes, 

Affirmation \ certainly. 

Contingence Perhaps, peradventure, perchance. 

Negation Nay, no, not, nowise. 

Explaining Namely. 

Separation Apart, separately, asunder. 

Conjunction Together, generally, universally. 

Indication Lo. 

Interrogation Why, wherefore, when, how. 



ETYMOLOGY. 



143 



Excess or Pre- 
eminence 
Defect 
Preference 
Likeness or 
Equality 
Unlike ness or 
Inequality 
Abatement or 
Gradation 
To or in a place 
To a place, only 
Towards a place 
From a place 
Time present 

past 



future 

Repetition of 
times indef 

Definitely 

Order 
Quantity 



\Very, exceedingly, too, more, better, worse, 
J best, worst. 

Almost, nearly, less, least. 

Rather, chiefly, especially. 

[So, thus, as, equally. 
[Else, otherwise.* 

[Piecemeal, scarcely, hardly. 

Here, there, where. 

Hither, thither, whither. 

Hitherward, thitherward, whitherward. 

Hence, thence, whence. 

Now, to-day. 

f Yesterday, before, heretofore, already, 
I hitherto, lately. 

f To-morrow, hereafter, presently, imme- 
i diately, afterwards. 

[Often, seldom, frequently. 

Once, twice, thrice, again. 
First a , secondly, thirdly, &c. 
Much, little, enough, sufficiently. 



On inquiring into the meaning and etymology of adverbs, 
it will appear, that most of them are abbreviations or con- 
tractions for two or more words. Thus, bravely, or " in a brave 
manner," is probably derived by abbreviation from brave-like, 
wisely from icise-like, happily from happy-like*. Mr. Tooke, 

a Firstly, is used by some writers. 

b Denominativa terminantur in lie vel lice, ut perilic virilis, aelic legi- 
timus, T'aslic marinus, piplic muliebris, &c. Hanc terminationem he-die 
mutavimus in like vel ly, ut in godlike vel godly. Hickesii Thes. 

The correctness of this explanation has been controverted by Mr. Gil- 
christ, who contends that, though it may answer in some cases, it will 
fail " in nine times out of ten." In the expressions " weekly wages," 
" daily labour," " yearly income," he observes, that the meaning cannot 
be, "wages like a week," "labour like a day," " income like a year." 
He rejects, therefore, this explanation, and considers the termination lie 



144 ETYMOLOGY. 

indeed, has proved, as I conceive incontrovertibly, that most 
of them are either corruptions of other words, or abbreviations 
of phrases or of sentences. One thing is certain, that the ad- 
verb is not an indispensable part of speech, as it serves merely 
to express in one word what perhaps would otherwise require 
two or more words. Thus, 



Where a 


denotes 


In what place 


Here 




In this place 


There 




In that place 


Whither 




To what place 


Hither 




To this place 


Thither 




To that place. 



to be the same with lig in the Latin verb ligo, " to tie," or "join," and 
to have the same effect as other conjunctive particles, as '* a friendly 
part," '* a friend's part," " yearly produce," " year's produce." Though 
a copious induction of examples justifies us in refusing our assent to 
Mr. Gilchrist's exaggerated statement, that the derivation proposed by 
Hickes will fail in nine cases out of ten ; we candidly acknowledge, that 
in many instances it is inadmissible ; and that Mr. Gilchrist's suggestion 
is ingenious, though it will be found, we apprehend, opposed by the 
same objection as he urges against Hickes's explanation. Nor does it 
appear to us, that Mr. Gilchrist's argument subverts the doctrine gene- 
rally received. The termination may have been originally what Hickes 
supposed, and the principle of analogy may, in time, have introduced 
similar compositions, when this meaning of the termination ceased to be 
regarded. Thus the term candidly, which we have just now used, was 
probably introduced, in conformity to analogy, with no reference what- 
ever to the meaning of the termination. It may be here also observed, 
that the import of this term seems inexplicable on the hypothesis that 
ly is a mere term of conjunction. 

a These three adverbs, denoting motion or rest in a place, are frequently 
employed by us, in imitation of the French, to denote motion to a place 
in the same sense with the three following adverbs. It would be better, 
however, were the distinction observed. The French use ici for here 
and hither, la for there and thither, ou for where and whither. 



ETYMOLOCxY. 145 



CHAPTER VIII. 

OF PREPOSITIONS. 

A preposition has been defined to be " that part of speech 
which shows the relation that one thing bears to another." 
According to Mr. Harris, it is a part of speech devoid itself of 
signification, but so formed as to unite words that are signi- 
ficant, and that refuse to unite or associate of themselves. 
He has, therefore, compared them to pegs or pins, which 
serve to unite those parts of the building which would not, 
by their own nature, incorporate or coalesce. When one con- 
siders the formidable objections which present themselves to 
this theory, and that the ingenious author now quoted has, 
in defence of it, involved himself in palpable contradictions, 
it becomes matter of surprise that it should have so long re- 
ceived from grammarians an almost universal and implicit 
assent. This furnishes one of many examples, how easily 
error may be imposed and propagated by the authority of a 
great name. But, though error may be repeatedly transmit- 
ted from age to age, unsuspected and unquestioned, it cannot 
be perpetuated. Mr. Home Tooke has assailed this theory 
by irresistible arguments, and demonstrated that, in our lan- 
guage at least, prepositions are significant of ideas, and that, 
as far as import is concerned, they do not form a distinct spe- 
cies of words. 

It is not, indeed, easy to imagine, that men, in the forma- 
tion of any language, would invent words insignificant, and 
to which, singly, the)>- attached no determinate idea ; especially 
when it is considered, that, in every stage of their existence, 
from rudeness to civilization, new words would perpetually 
be wanting to express new ideas. It is not, therefore, proba- 
ble that, while they were under the necessity of framing new 
words, to answer the exigences of mental enlargement, and 
while these demands on their invention were incessantly re- 
curring, they would, in addition to this, encumber themselves 

L 



146 ETYMOLOGY. 

with the idle and unnecessary task of forming new words to 
express nothing. 

But, in truth, Harris himself yields the point, when he says, 
that prepositions, when compounded, transfuse something of 
their meaning into the compound ; for they cannot transfuse 
what they do not contain, nor impart what they do not pos- 
sess. They must, therefore, be themselves significant words. 

But it is not so much their meaning with which the gram- 
marian is concerned, as their syntactical character, their ca- 
pacity of affecting other words, or being affected by them. 
In both these lights, however, I propose to consider them. 

The name of preposition has been assigned to them, be- 
cause they generally precede their regimen, or the word which 
they govern. What number of these words ancient and mo- 
dern languages contain, has been much disputed ; some gram- 
marians determining a greater and some a less number. This, 
indeed, of itself affords a conclusive proof that the character 
of these words has not been clearly understood ; for, in the 
other parts of speech, noun, adjective, and verb, the discrimi- 
native circumstances are so evident, that no doubt can arise 
concerning their classification. 

That most of our English prepositions have signification 
per se, and form no distinct species of words, Mr. Tooke has 
produced incontrovertible evidence : nor is it to be doubted, 
that a perfect acquaintance with the Northern languages* 
would convince us, that all of them are abbreviations, cor- 
ruptions, or combinations of other words. A few of Mr. 
Tooke's examples I shall now present to the reader. 

Above, from the Anglo-Saxon afa, high ; hence bufan, on 
bufan, bove, above. 

With, from withan, to join, of which with is the impera- 
tive ; thus, " a house with a party wall? — " a house, 
join a party wall ; " or it is sometimes the imperative 
of wyrthan, " to be ; " hence, by and with are often 
synonymous, the former being derived from beon, " to 
be." 

Without, from the Saxon preposition withutan, extra, sine, 
which is properly the imperative of the verb wyrthan- 



ETYMOLOGY. 147 

utan, " to be out." Withutan, bentan, " without," 
" be out," or " but." The Saxon preposition occurs 
frequently in the writings of Chaucer, and is still used 
in Scottish poetry a . 

From h , is simply the Anglo-Saxon and Gothic -noun/rum, 
" beginning," " source," " origin;" thus, " Figs came 
from Turkey;" that is, Figs came; " the source," or 
" beginning," Turkey ; to which is opposed the 
word. 

To, the same originally as do, signifying finishing or com- 
pletion ; thus " Figs came from Turkey to England;" 
" the beginning," or " source," Turkey ; " the finish- 
ing," or " end," England. 

Beneath, is the imperative be, compounded with the noun 
neath, of the same import with neden in Dutch, ned in 
Danish, niedere in German, and nedre or neder in 
Swedish, signifying the lower place ; hence, the astro- 
nomical term Nadir, opposed to Zenith. Hence also 
nether and nethermost. 

Between, "be twain," " be two," or " be separated." 

a " For blithesome Sir John Barleycorn 
Had sae allur'd them i' the morn, 
That, what wi* drams, and raony a horn, 

And reaming bicker, 
The ferly is, withouten scorn, 
They wauk'd sae sicker." 

Maynes Siller Gun. 

This animated little poem will be read with no common pleasure by 
every admirer of the Scottish muse. In felicity of description the author 
is not inferior to Burns, while in delicacy of humour he may claim the 
superiority. 

This preposition is supposed by Mr. Gilchrist to be derived from forth, 
or rather to be a different form of that word. See his " Philosophic 
Etymology," a work exhibiting considerable ingenuity and philological 
knowledge, combined with many fanciful and unphilosophical opinions. 

b It is possible that the Greek dno, and the Latin ah derived from it, 
had their origin in 'yfc pater principium, " author," or " principle of ex- 
istence." 

c The verb, " to twin," is still used in Scotland for " to part," or 
" Separate." 

L 2 



148 ETYMOLOGY. 

Before, \ 

Behind, \ Imperative be, and the nouns, fore, hind, side, 

Beside, i low. 

Below, j 

Under, i. e. on neder. 

Beyond, imperative be, and the participle past goned of 
the verb gan, " to go:" as, "beyond the place," i.e. 
" be passed the place." 
Among, from gemong, the preterperfect of the verb mengan, 
to mix, used as a participle, and signifying " mixed." 

Many other examples might be produced from Tooke's in- 
genious illustration of his theory; but those which I have 
now offered suffice to prove, that our prepositions, so far 
from being words insignificant, belong to the class of nouns 
or verbs either single or compounded. 

Besides, if prepositions denote relations, as Harris admits, 
it is surely absurd to suppose, that they have no meaning ; 
for the relation, whether of propinquity, contiguity, approach, 
or regress, &c, may be expressed, and apprehended by the 
mind, though the objects between which the relation subsists 
be not specified. If I hear the word with, I naturally con- 
ceive the idea of conjunction; the reverse takes place when 
I hear without. If it be said a soldier with, I have the idea 
of a soldier associated with something else, which association 
is denoted by with. What is conjoined to him I know not, 
till the object be specified, as, " a soldier with a musquet;" 
but the mere association was before sufficiently expressed, 
and clearly apprehended. Again, if a person say, " he threw 
a glass under," I have instantly an idea of a glass, and of in- 
feriority of place, conceiving a glass removed into a situation 
lower than something else. To ascertain that something, I 
ask, under what ? and the answer may be, under the table. 
Now, if under had no meaning, this question would be in- 
significant, or rather impossible. 

From the examples given, I trust the young reader suffi- 
ciently understands the difference between the doctrine of 
Harris on this subject, and that of Home Tooke ; nay, I 
think, he must perceive, that the former is merely a theory, 



ETYMOLOGY 



149 



while the latter is supported by reason and fact. The syntax 
of our prepositions will be afterwards explained. I shall 
only observe at present, that the words which are in English 
considered as prepositions, and joined to the objective case 
are these : 



Above 


Beneath 


Since 


About 


Below 


Through ^ 


After 


Beside 


ThroughoutJ 


Against 


By 


Till | 
Until J 


Among l 
Amongst 3 


Down 


For 


To | 
Unto J 


Amid ") 


From 


Amidst J 


In 


Toward } 
Towards i 


Around ? 
Round j 


Into 


Near ") 
Nigh 3 


Under 1 


At 


Underneath J 


Between -> 
Betwixt } 


Of 


Up 


Off 


With 


Beyond 


Over 


Within 


Before 


On ^ 

Upon I 


Without 


Behind 





Some of these, though they are commonly joined to an ob- 
jective case, and may therefore be deemed prepositions, are, 
notwithstanding, of an equivocal character, resembling the 
Latin adverbs procul and prope, which govern a case by the 
ellipsis of a preposition. Thus we say, "near the house" 
and " near to the house," " nigh the park," and " nigh to the 
park," "off the table," and "oSfrom the table." 

Several are used as adverbs, and also as prepositions, no 
ellipsis being involved, as, till, until, after, before. 

There are certain particles, which are never found single 
or uncompounded, and have therefore been termed insepa- 
rable prepositions. Those purely English are, a, be, fore, 
mis, un. The import of these, and of a few separable pre- 
positions when prefixed to other words, 1 proceed to explain. 

A, signifies on or in, as, a foot, a shore, that is, on foot, on 
shore. Webster contends, that it was originally the 
same with one. 



1 50 ETYMOLOGY. 






Be, signifies about, as, bestir, besprinkle, that is, stir about ; 

also for or before, as, bespeak, that is, speak for, or 

before. 
For, denies, or deprives, as, bid, forbid, seek, forsake, i. e. 

bid, bid not ; seek, not seek. 
Fore, signifies before, as, see, foresee, that is, see beforehand. 
Mis, denotes defect or error, as, lake, mistake, or take 

wrongly ; deed, misdeed, that is, a wrong or evil deed. 
Over, denotes eminence or superiority, as, come, overcome ; 

also excess, as, hasty, over hasty, or too hasty. 
Out, signifies excess or superiority, as, do, outdo, run, 

outrun, that is, " to surpass in running." 
Un, before au adjective, denotes negation, or privation, 

as, worthy, unworthy, or " not worthy." Before verbs 

it denotes the undoing or the destroying of the energy 

or act, expressed by the verb, as, say, unsay, that is, 

" affirm," retract the " affirmation." 
Up, denotes motion upwards, as, start, upstart ; rest in a 

higher place, as, hold, uphold; sometimes subversion, 

as, set, upset. 
With, siginifies against, as, stand, withstand, that is, 

" stand against, or resist." 

The Latin prepositions used in the composition of English 
words are these, ab or abs, ad, ante, con, circum, contra, de, 
di, dis, e or ex, extra, in, inter, intro, ob, per, post, prce, pro, 
prceter, re, retro, se, sub, subter, super, trans. 

A, ab, abs, signify from or away, as, to abstract, that is, 

" to draw away." 
Ad, signifies to or at, as, to adhere, that is, " to stick to." 
Ante, means before, as, antecedent, that is, u going before." 
Circum, round, about, as, circumnavigate, or " sail round." 
Con, com, co, col, signify together, as, convoke, or " call 

together," co-operate, or " work together," colleague, 

"joined together." 
Contra, against, as, contradict, or " speak against." 
De, signifies doivn, as, deject, or " throw down." 
Di dis, asunder, as distract, or " draw asunder." 



ETYMOLOGY. 151 

E, ex, out of, as, egress, or " going out," eject, or " throw 

out," exclude, or " shut out." 
Extra, beyond, as, extraordinary, or " beyond the ordinary 

or usual course." 
In, before an adjective, like un, denotes privation, as, 

active, inactive, or " not active ;" before a verb, it has 

its simple meaning. 
Inter, between, as, intervene, or " come between," inter- 
pose, or " put between." 
Intro, to within, as, introduce, ox "lead in." 
Ob, denotes opposition, as, obstacle, that is, " something 

standing in opposition," " an impediment." 
Per, through, or thoroughly, as, perfect, or " thoroughly 

done," to perforate, or " to bore through." 
Post, after, as, postscript, or " written after," that is, after 

the letter. 
Pr<B, before, as, prefix, or " fix before." 
Pro, forth, or forwards, as, promote, or " move forwards." 
Prceter, past, or beyond, as, preternatural, or "beyond the 

course of nature." 
Re, again, or back, as, retake, or " take back." 
Retro, backwards, as, retrograde, or " going backwards." 
Se, apart, or without, as, to secrete, " to put aside," or " to 

hide," secure, " without care or apprehension." 
Subter, under, as, subterfluoiis , or " flowing under." 
Super, above, or over, as, superscribe, or " write above, or 

over." 
Trans, over, from one place to another, as, transport, that 

is, " carry over." 
The Greek prepositions and particles compounded with 
English words are, a, amphi, anti, hyper, hypo, meta, peri, 
syn. 

A, signifies privation, as, anonymous, or " without a name." 
Amphi, both, or the two, as, amphibious, " having both 

lives," that is, " on land and on water." 
Anti, against, as, anti-covenanter, anti-jacobin, that is, 

" an opponent of the covenanters," " an enemy to the 

jacobins." 



152 ETYMOLOGY. 

Hyper, over and above, as, hypercritical, or " over," that 
is, " too critical." 

Hypo, wider, implying concealment or disguise, as, hy- 
pocrite, " one dissembling his real character." 

Meta, denotes change or transmutation, as, to metamor- 
phose, or " to change the shape." 

Para, denotes sometimes propinquity or similarity, and 
sometimes contrariety. It is equivalent to the Latin 
terms juocta and prater, as, " to paraphrase," ica^a- 
(pfaSsiv, juxta alterius orationem loqui ; " to speak 
the meaning of another." Paradox, " beyond," or 
" contrary to, general opinion," or " common belief." 

Peri, round about, as, periphrasis, that is, " circumlo- 
cution." 

Syn, together, as synod, " a meeting," or " coming to- 
gether," sympathy, or " feeling together." 



ETYMOLOGY. 153 



CHAPTER IX. 

OF CONJUNCTIONS. 

A conjunction has been defined to be "that part of speech 
which connects words and sentences together." 

Mr. Ruddiman, and several other grammarians, have 
asserted, that conjunctions never connect words, but sen- 
tences. This is evidently a mistake ; for if I say, " a man 
of wisdom and virtue is a perfect character," it implies not 
" that a man of wisdom is a perfect character, and a man of 
virtue a perfect character," but " a man who combines wis- 
dom and virtue." The farther discussion of this question, 
however, I shall at present postpone, as it will form a subject 
of future inquiry. 

Conjunctions have been distributed, according to their 
significations, into different classes : 

Copulative, And, also, but, (bot). 

Disjunctive, Either, or. 

Concessive, Though, although, albeit, yet. 

Adversative, But, however. 

Exclusive, Neither, nor. 

Causal, For, that, because, since. 

Illative, Therefore, wherefore, then. 

Conditional, If. 

Exceptive, Unless. 

This distribution of the conjunctions I have given, in 
conformity to general usage, that the reader may be ac- 
quainted with the common terms by which conjunctions 
have been denominated, if these terms should occur to him 
in the course of reading. In respect to the real import, and 
genuine character of these words, I decidedly adopt the theory 
of Mr. Tooke, which considers conjunctions as no distinct 
species of words, but as belonging to the class of attribu- 
tives, or as abbreviations for two or more significant words. 

Agreeably to his theory, and is an abbreviation for anad, 



154 ETYMOLOGY. 

the imperative of ananad, " to add," or " to accumulate ;" 
as, "two and two make four;" that is, "two, add two, make 
four." Either is evidently an adjective expressive of " one 
of two;" thus, "it is either day or night," that is, " one of 
the two, day or night." It is derived from the Saxon agther, 
equivalent to nterque, " each." a 

Or is a contraction for other, a Saxon and English adjec- 
tive equivalent to alius or alter, and denotes diversity, either 
of name or of subject. Hence or is sometimes a perfect dis- 
junctive, as when it expresses contrariety or opposition of 
things ; and sometimes a subdisjunctive, when it denotes 
simply a diversity in name. Thus, when we say, " It is either 
even or odd," or is a perfect disjunctive, the two attributives 
being directly contrary, and admitting no medium. If I say, 
" Paris or Alexander " (these being names of the same indi- 
vidual) ; or if I say, " Gravity or weight," " Logic, or the art 
of reasoning;" or in these examples is a subdisjunctive or 
an explicative, as it serves to define the meaning of the pre- 
ceding term, or as it expresses the equivalence of two terms. 
The Latins express the former by aut, vel, and the latter by 
seu or sive. In the following sentence both conjunctions are 
exemplified: Give me either the black or the white;" i. e. 
" Give me one of the two — the black — other, the white." 

To these are opposed neither, nor, as, " Give me neither 
poverty nor riches ;" i. e. " Give me not one of the two, po- 
verty — nor, i. e. not the other, riches." 

According to Mr. Tooke, the conjunction if is the impe- 
rative of the Anglo-Saxon and Gothic verb gifan, " to give." 
Among others, he quotes the following example. " How 
will the weather dispose of you to-morrow ? If fair, it will 
send me abroad; if foul, it will keep me at home"— i. e. 
"Give," or " grant it to be fair ; " " give," or " grant it to be foul." 

a That the Saxon word cegther signified each, is sufficiently evident 
from a variety of examples ; and the adjective either has continued to be 
used in that sense by reputable writers. Lowth, who, I apprehend, did 
not advert to its primitive signification, condemns the use of it as equiva- 
lent to each : and notwithstanding its original import, I agree with him in 
thinking, that it is much better to confine its meaning to " one of two." 
The reason will be assigned hereafter* 



ETYMOLOGY. 155 

Though is the same as thaf, an imperative from thqfan, to 
allow, and is in some parts of the country pronounced thof; 
as, " Though he should speak truth, I would not believe 
him;" i.e. " allow or grant, what? he should speak truth," 
or " allow his speaking truth, I would not believe him." 

But, from beutan, the imperative of beon utan, to be out, 
is the same as without or unless, there being no diiference 
between these in respect to meaning. Grammarians, how- 
ever, in conformity to the distinction between nisi and sine, 
have called but a conjunction, and without a preposition. 
But, therefore, being a word signifying exception or ex- 
clusion, I have not termed it an " adversative," as most 
grammarians have, but an "exceptive." In this sense it 
is synonymous with prater, prceterquam, or nisi; thus, 
" I saw nobody but John," i. e. " unless," or " except John." 

But, from bot, the imperative of botan, to boot or superadd, 
has a very different meaning. This word was originally 
written bot, and was thus distinguished from but a . They 
are now written alike, which tends to create confusion. The 
meaning of this word is, " add," or, " moreover." This in- 
terpretation is confirmed by the probable derivation and 
meaning of synonymous words in other languages. Thus, 
the French mais (but) is from ma jus, or magis, " more," or 
" in addition ; " the Italian ma, the Spanish mas, and the 
Dutch maar, are from the same etymon, signifying " more." 
And it is not improbable, that adsit (be it present, or be it 
added) by contraction became ast and at: thus, adsit, adst, 
ast, at. In this sense but is synonymous with at, autem, 
cceterum, " moreover," or " in addition." 

It is justly observed by Mr. Tooke, that bot or but allays 
or mitigates a good or bad precedent, by the addition of 
something; for botan means "to superadd," "to supply," "to 
atone for," "to compensate," "to add something more," "to 
make amends," or " make up deficiency." Thus, 

" Once did I lay an ambush for your life, 
A trespass, that doth vex my grieved soul : 
But (bot), ere I last received the sacrament, 
I did confess " Richard II. 

" Add (this) ere I last received." 

a Bot ser that Virgil standis but compare Gawin Douglass. 



156 ETYMOLOGY. 

When but means be out, or without, it should, says Mr. 
Tooke, be preceded by a negative ; thus, instead of saying, 
" I saw but John," which means, " I saw John be out," we 
should say, " I saw none but John," i. e. " none, John be 
out," or " had John been out," or, " John being excluded." 
This, observes the ingenious author, is one of the most faulty 
ellipses in our language, and could never have obtained, but 
through the utter ignorance of the meaning of the word but 
(bot). 

Yet, from the imperative of get an, " to get." 

Still, from stell or steall, the imperative of stellan, ponere, 
" to suppose." 

Home Tooke observing that these words, like if and ari A , 
are synonymous, accounts for their equivalence by supposing 
them to be derived from verbs of the same import. His mode 
of derivation, however, appears at first hearing to be incor- 
rect : the meaning of the conjunctions have little or no af- 
finity to that of the verbs. Mr. Tooke himself does not seem 
perfectly satisfied with its truth. Both these conjunctions 
are synonymous with "notwithstanding," "nevertheless;" 
terms, the obvious meaning of which does not accord with 
verbs denoting " to get," or " to suppose." I am inclined, 
however, to think thatTooke's conjecture is founded in truth. 
If I say, " he was learned, yet modest," it may be expressed, 
"he was learned, notwithstanding this, or this being granted, 
even thus, or be it so [licet ita esset) he was modest ;" where 
the general incompatibility between learning and modesty is 
conceived, not expressed, the expression denoting merely the 
combination of the qualities in the individual mentioned. 
Notwithstanding indirectly marks the repugnance, by signi- 
fying that the one quality did not prevent the co-existence of 
the other ; yet or still supposes the incompatibility to be suf- 

a An occurs frequently for if in the earliest English writers. Bacon 
frequently uses it in this sense. " Fortune is to be honoured and re- 
spected, an it be but for her daughters, Confidence and Reputation." 
" And certainly it is the nature of extreme self-lovers, as they will set 
their house on fire, an it were, but to roast their eggs." — Bacon's Essays, 
Civ. and Mor. In the folio edition, printed in 1740, it is improperly 
spelled and. An for if is still retained in our address to royalty, An H 
please your majesty: and in Scotland is in general use. 



ETYMOLOGY. 157 

ficiently known. This derivation is rendered the more pro- 
bable, as the word though (thof, grant) may be substituted to 
express the same idea, as " though (grant) he was learned, he 
was modest;" which is equivalent to "he was learned, yet 
(this granted) he was modest." Hence many repeat the 
concessive term, and say, " though he was learned, yet he 
was modest." 

Unless. Mr. Home Tooke is of opinion that this exceptive 
conjunction is properly onles, the imperative of the verb on- 
lesan, to dismiss; thus, "you cannot be saved unless you 
believe ; " i. e. " dismiss your believing, and you cannot be 
saved," or, "you cannot be saved, your believing being dis- 
missed." 

Lest is contracted for lesed, the participle of the same verb, 
on lesan or lesan, signifying "dismissed;" as, "Young men 
should take care to avoid bad company, lest their morals be 
corrupted, and their reputation ruined ; " that is, " Young 
men should take care to avoid bad company, lest (this being 
dismissed, or omitted) their morals be corrupted," &c. 

That is evidently in all cases an adjective, or, as some con- 
sider it, a demonstrative pronoun ; as, " They say that the 
king is arrived;" "They say that (thing) the king is arrived." 

Whether is an adjective, denoting " which of two ; " thus, 
"Whether he live or die;" that is, "Which of the two 
things, he live or die." 

As is the same with es, a German article, meaning it, that, 
or which. 

So is sa or so, a Gothic article of the same import. 

Than, which Mr. Tooke does not seem to have noticed, is 
supposed to be a compound of the definitive tha, and the 
additive termination, en, thus, tha en, thcenne, then, and now 
spelled than*. 

a The correctness of most of these, and several other of Tooke's ety- 
mologies, has been disputed, in a learned and ingenious article in the 
Quarterly Review (No. 108). In many of the critic's animadversions 
it is impossible not to concur; but we do not agree with him, when he 
rejects the derivation of if from the Anglo-Saxon verb gifan, "to give;" 
nor do we consider that Jamieson's argument, to which he refers, is such 
as to justify the critic's conclusion. The distinction between hot and but 



158 ETYMOLOGY. 

These few examples will serve to explain Mr. Tooke's 
theory on this subject ; and I am persuaded, that the further 
we investigate the etymology and real import of conjunctions, 
the more probable will it appear that they are all nouns or 
attributives, some belonging to kindred languages, and others 
compounds or abbreviations in our own. I am persuaded ? 
also, that from a general review of this subject, it must be 
evident that adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions, form no 
distinct species of words, and that they are all reducible to 
the class either of nouns or attributives, if their original cha- 
racter and real import be considered. But, as many of them 
are derived from obsolete words in our own language, or from 
words in kindred languages, the radical meanings of which 
are, therefore, either obscure, or generally unknown — and as 
the syntactical use of several of them has undergone a 
change — it can be no impropriety, nay, it is even convenient, 
to regard them not in their original character, but their 
present use. When the radical word still remains, the case 
is different. Thus except is by some considered as a pre- 
position ; but as the verb to except is still in use, except 
may, and indeed should, be considered as the imperative of 
the verb*. But in parsing, to say that the word unless is 

he confidently pronounces to be "a mere chimera," and maintains that 
but is in every instance be utan, " be out," without corresponding to the 
Latin words sed, vero, autem, sine. It must be acknowledged that Tooke's 
derivation is erroneous, there being no such Anglo-Saxon verb as " botan," 
of which bot could be the imperative. Eut we agree with Dr. Jamieson 
in thinking, whatever may be the etymology, that but and bot are origi- 
nally distinct words. Indeed, it appears to us, that the reasoning of the 
critic is neither correct, nor quite consistent with itself. We do not con- 
sider but for bot to be discriminative ; nor can we allow, that, if but be 
equivalent to sed, se, sine, implying separation, it can also be equivalent 
to autem, " moreover," to which bot corresponds, implying adjection, 
or subj unction. Nor can we admit, that the synonymous words mais 
(French), maar (Dutch), ma (Italian), imply preference, as the critic 
affirms, but something to be added, corresponding with what has been 
previously said. 

a The critic to whom we have alluded in the preceding note contends, 
that except cannot be an imperative, "because it has no subject; and that 
a verb could not be employed, in any language that distinguishes the 
different persons, without a gross violation of idiom." He considers the 






ETYMOLOGY. 159 

the imperative of the verb onlesan, " to dismiss/' that verb 
belonging to a different language, would serve only to perplex 
and to confound, were it even true that the etymology is 
correct. For this reason, though I perfectly concur with 
Mr. Tooke as to the proper and original character of these 
words, I have distributed them under the customary head of 
prepositions, adverbs, and conjunctions. 

word to be an abbreviated participle. The correctness of this opinion I 
am disposed to question. In our Anglo-Saxon translation, the term 
except is rendered by buton, which is no participle ; moreover, to place 
the participle perfect before the noun, the clause being absolute, is irre- 
concilable with the idiom of our language. " * All were involved in 
this affair, except one;' that is," says Webster, who seems divided be- 
tween the imperative and the participle, " e one excepted.' " Now " one 
excepted," and "excepting one," are perfectly consonant with analogy; 
but " excepted one " is sanctioned by no authority. I am inclined to 
think that our translators, without regarding the Latin or the Icelandic 
idiom, to which the reviewer refers, used the word except as an impera- 
tive, without a subject. He denies, however, that it can be so employed. 
He surely will not deny, that usage warrants us in saying, "His argu- 
ments, take them as here exhibited, amount to nothing." The use of the 
imperative, infinitive, and participles, in an absolute sense, or without a 
subject, is a common idiom in our language, and recommends itself, as 
shall be afterwards shown, by some peculiar advantages. 



160 ETYMOLOGY. 

CHAPTER X. 

OF INTERJECTIONS. 

An interjection has been denned to be, " that part of speech 
which denotes some affection or emotion of the mind." It 
is clearly not a necessary part of speech ; for, as Tooke ob- 
serves, interjections are not to be found in books of history, 
philosophy, or religion : they occur in novels only, or 
dramatic compositions. Some of these are entirely in- 
stinctive and mechanical, as, ha ! ha I ha ! sounds common 
to all men, when agitated with laughter. These physical 
emissions of sound have no more claim to be called parts of 
speech than the neighing of a horse, or the lowing of a cow. 
There are others which seem arbitrary, and are expressive of 
some emotion, not simply by the articulation, but by the ac- 
companying voice or gesture. Grief, for example, is ex- 
pressed in English by the word ah ! or oh ! in Latin by oi, 
ei ! and in Greek by ol, ol, al, al ! Here the sounds are not 
instinctive, or purely mechanical, as in laughing ; but the 
accompanying tone of voice, which is the same in all men, 
under the influence of the same emotion, indicates clearly 
the feeling or passion of the speaker. Others, which have 
been deemed interjections, are, in truth, verbs or nouns, em- 
ployed in the rapidity of thought and expression, and under 
the influence of strong emotion, to denote, what would other- 
wise require more words to express : as, strange ! for it is 
strange ; adieu ! for / recommend you to God ; shame ! for 
it is shame ; welcome I for you are welcome. 

The words which have been considered by our English 
grammarians as interjections, are the following, expressive of 

1. Joy, as, Hey, Io. 7. Languor, Heigh ho. 

2. Grief, Ah, alas, alack. 8. Desire of silence, Hush, 

3. Wonder, Vah ! hah ! aha ! hist, mum. 

4. Aversion, Tush, pish, 9. Deliberation, Hum. 

pshaw, foh, fie, pugh. 10. Exultation, Huzza. 

5. Laughter, Ha, ha, ha. 11. Pain, Oh ! ho ! 

6. Desire of attention, Hark, 12. Taking leave, Adieu. 

Io, halloo, hem, hip. 13. Greeting, Welcome. 



PAET II. 

SYNTAX. 



Syntax is the arrangement of words in sentences or phrases, 
agreeably to established usage, or to the received rules of 
concord and government. 

Sentences are either simple or complex. 

A simple sentence consists of only one member, contain- 
ing therefore but one subject, and one finite verb, as, 
" Alexander the Great is said to have wept." 

A complex sentence consists of two or more members, as, 
" Alexander, when he had conquered the world, is said to 
have wept, because there were not other worlds to "subdue." 

Complex sentences are divided into members; and these, 
if complex, are subdivided into clauses, as, " The ox knoweth 
his owner | and the ass his master's crib || but Israel doth 
not know | my people doth not consider." This complex 
sentence has two members, each of which contains two 
clauses. 

When a member of a complex sentence is simple, it is 
called indifferently a member, or a clause ; as, " I have 
called, but ye have refused." The two parts, into which 
this sentence divides itself, are termed each either a member 
or a clause. 

When a complex sentence is so framed, that the meaning- 
is suspended till the whole be finished, it is called a period ; 
otherwise the sentence is said to be loose. The following 
sentence is an example of a period : " If Hannibal had not 
wintered at Capua, by which circumstance his troops were 
enervated, but had, on the contrary, after the battle of 
Cannae, proceeded to Rome, it is not improbable that the 
great city would have fallen." 

M 



162 SYNTAX. 

The criterion of a period is, that you cannot stop before 
you reach the end of the sentence, otherwise the sentence is 
incomplete. The following is an example of a loose sentence. 
" One party had given their whole attention during several 
years, to the project of enriching themselves, and impoverish- 
ing the rest of the nation ; and, by these and other means, of 
establishing their dominion, under the government, and with 
the favour of a family, who were foreigners : and therefore 
might believe, they were established on the throne, by the 
good-will and strength of this party alone." In this sentence 
you may stop at the words themselves, nation, dominion, 
government, or foreigners ; and these pauses will severally 
complete the construction, and conclude perfect sentences. 
Thus, in a period, the dependence of the members is reci- 
procal ; in a loose sentence, the preceding are not neces- 
sarily dependent on the subsequent members ; whereas the 
following entirely depend on those which are antecedent. 
The former possesses more strength, and greater majesty ; 
hence it is adapted to the graver subjects of history, philo- 
sophy, and religion. The latter is less artificial, and ap- 
proaches nearer to the style of conversation; hence it is 
suited to the gayer and more familiar subjects of tales, dia- 
logues, and epistolary correspondence. 

Concord is the agreement of one word with another, in 
case, gender, number, or person ; thus, " I love." Here / 
is the pronoun singular of the first person, and the verb is 
likewise in the first person, and singular number ; they agree 
therefore in number and person. 

Government is the power which one word hath over another 
in determining its state ; thus, " he wounded us." In this 
sentence, wounded is an active transitive verb, and governs 
the pronoun in the objective case. 



sVntax. 163 



CHAPTER I. 



OF CONCORD. 



Rule I, — A verb agrees with its nominative in 
number and person, as, 

We teach 

He learns 
where we and teach are each plural, and of the first 
person ; he and learns are each singular, and of the 
third person. 

Note 1. — This rule is violated in such examples as these, 
"I likes," "thou loves," "he need," "you was." In re- 
ference to the last example, the reader should observe, that 
yon is plural, whether it relate to only one individual or to 
more, and ought therefore to be joined with a plural verb. 
It is no argument to say, that when we address a single per- 
son, we should use a verb singular; for were this plea ad- 
missible, we ought to say, " you wast," for wast is the second 
person singular, and not " you was," for was is the first or 
third. Besides, no one says, " you is," or " you art," but 
" you are." 

Note 2. — The nominative to a verb is known by putting 
the question, Who ? or What? to the verb, as, I read ; Who 
reads ? Ans. /. 

Note 3. — The infinitive often supplies the place of a nomi- 
native to a verb, thus, " To excel in every laudable pursuit 
should be the aim of every one." What should be the aim? 
Ans. " To excel." 

Note 4. — As, considered now as a conjunction, but being, 
in its primitive signification, equivalent to it, that, or which, 
likewise supplies the place of a nominative, thus, " As far 
as regards his interest, he will be sufficiently careful not 

m 2 



164 syntIx. 

to offend." Some grammarians suppose it to be under- 
stood. 

Note 5. — A verb is frequently construed with a whole 
clause as its nominative, thus, " His being at enmity with 
Caesar was the cause of perpetual discord;" where, his being 
at enmity, the subject of the affirmation, forms the nominative 
to the verb. 

Note 6. — The nominative, when the verb expresses com- 
mand or entreaty, is often suppressed, as, " speak," for 
" speak thou," " honour the king," for " honour ye the 
king." It is also frequently suppressed in poetry, as 
" Lives there, who loves his pain ? " Milton : — i. e. " Lives 
there a man ? " " To whom the monarch ; " replied being 
understood. 

Note 7. — A noun singular, used for a plural, is joined to a 
plural verb, as, " Ten sail of the line were descried at a dis- 
tance." It has been already observed, that the plural termi- 
nation is sometimes suppressed, as, " ten thousand," " three 
brace," " four pair." 

Note 8. — Priestley has said, that when the particle there is 
prefixed to a verb singular, a plural noun may follow, "with- 
out a very sensible impropriety." But, if there be an impro- 
priety at all, why should the phraseology be adopted ? His 
example is this, " There necessarily follows from thence 
these plain and unquestionable consequences." Nothing, 
we apprehend, can justify this violation of analogy. It 
should be, " follow." Would Dr. Priestley have said "There 
is men who never reason ? " 

Note 9. — The nominative generally precedes the verb, and 
is, in some examples, known by nothing but its place. This 
arrangement, however, is sometimes altered, and the verb 
placed before the nominative. 

1st. Where the sentence is interrogative, as, "Does wealth 
make men happy ? " Here the nominative wealth follows the 
auxiliary : "wealth does" would denote affirmation. " Stands 
Scotland where it did ? " Here also the nominative follows the 
verb, to denote interrogation a . 

a This phraseology has been censured by Buchanan and the author 
of the British Grammar ; but, as I apprehend, without the shadow of 



SYNTAX. 165 

2ndly. In expressing commands or request, as " go thou," 
" read ye." 

3rdly. AVhen a supposition is elliptically expressed, the 
conditional particle if being understood, as, " Were I Alex- 
ander," said Parmenio, " I would accept the offer," where 
" were I," is equivalent to " if I were." 

4thly. After the introductory word there, as " There was 
a man sent by God, whose name was John." " There are 
many who have the wisdom to prefer virtue to every other 
acquirement." This arrangement is preferable to "a man 
was sent," " many are," &c. ; and, as a general rule, I 
observe, that this collocation is not only proper but requisite, 
when a sentiment of importance is to be introduced to the 
hearer's particular attention. 

othly. When the speaker is under the influence of vehe- 
ment emotion, or when vivacity and force are to be imparted 
to the expression, the nominative energetically follows the 
verb, as, " Great is Diana of the Ephesians." Alter the ar- 
rangement, saying, " Diana of the Ephesians is great," and 
you efface the signature of impetuosity, and render the ex- 
pression frigid and unaffecting. " Blessed is he, that cometh 
in the name of the Lord." " He is blessed " would convert, 
as Campbell judiciously observes, a fervid exclamation into 
a cold aphorism. "Fallen, fallen is Babylon, that great 
city." The energy of the last expression arises partly, I ac- 
knowledge, from the epijeuxis or reduplication a . 

6thly. The auxiliary verb is placed before the nominative, 
when the sentence or member begins with nor or neither, as, 
" Nor did we doubt that rectitude of conduct would event- 
ually prove itself the best policy." Thus also is placed the 
principal verb, as, " Nor left he in the city a soul alive." 

authority. To ask a question with a principal verb, as burns he, the latter 
affirms to be a barbarism. To disprove the assertion, I shall only, in ad- 
dition to the one quoted from Macbeth, produce these examples. " Simon, 

son of Jo'nas, lovest thou me?" Bible. " Died he not in bed?" — Shak- 

speare. " Or flies the javelin swifter to its mark?" — lb. " And live 
there men who slight immortal fame?" — Pope. 

a Our translators, as the judicious critic last quoted observes, have to- 
tally enervated the strength of the original, which runs thus, cWcre, hrecre, 
Bafiv\a>v fj noXis 77 fxeyaXr), and which they have rendered, " Babylon is 
fallen, is fallen, that great citv." 



166 SYNTAX. 

Besides the cases now enumerated, in which the verb 
should precede the nominative, there are several others not 
easilj r reducible to any precise rule. In general, however, it 
may be remarked, that the place of the nominative depends, 
in some degree, on its connexion with other parts of the 
sentence. " Hence appears the impossibility, that this un- 
dertaking should be carried on in a monarchy." Impossi- 
bility being here in sense closely connected with the follow- 
ing words, this arrangement is preferable to that in the ori- 
ginal. Hume says, " Hence the impossibility appears, that 
this undertaking should be carried on in a monarchy." 

Priestley has said, that nouns, whose form is plural, but 
signification singular, require a singular verb, as, " Mathema- 
tics is a useful study." This observation, however, is not 
justified by general usage, reputable writers being in this 
case much divided. (See p. 19.) 

Rule II. — Two or more substantives singular, de- 
noting different things, being equivalent to a plural, 
take a plural verb ; or, when two or more substantives 
singular are collectively subjects of discourse, they 
require a plural verb, and plural representatives, as, 
" Cato and Cicero were learned men ; and they loved 
their country." 

Note 1. — This rule is violated in such examples as this, 
" I do not think, that leisure of life and tranquillity of mind, 
which fortune and your own wisdom has given you, could be 
better employed." — Swift. 

Note 2. — It was customary with the writers of antiquity, 
when the substantives were nearly synonymous, to employ a 
verb singular, as, mens, ratio, et consilium in senibus est, " un- 
derstanding, reason, and prudence is in old men." In imita- 
tion of these, some English authors have, in similar instances, 
employed a verb singular. I concur, however, with b. Mur- 
ray in disapproving this phraseology. For either the terms 
are synonymous, or they are not. If their equivalence be 
admitted, all but one are redundant, and there is only one 
subject of discourse ; only one term should therefore be re- 
tained, and a verb singular be joined with it. If they be not 



SYNTAX. 167 

equivalent, there are as many distinct ideas as there are 
terms, and a plurality of subjects requires a plural verb. 

This observation, however, requires some limitation. It 
occasionally happens that one subject is represented by two 
names, neither of which singly would express it with suffi- 
cient strength. In such cases, the two nouns may take a 
verb singular; and if the noun singular should be in juxta- 
position with the verb, the singular number should be used ; 
as "Why is dust and ashes proud?" — Ecclesiasticus, 
chap. x. 

Note 3.— -In such expressions as the following, it has been 
doubted, whether the verb should be in the singular or in 
the plural number : " Every officer and soldier claim a supe- 
riority in regard to other individuals." — De Lolme on the 
British Constitution. Here, I conceive, the phraseology is 
correct. Such an expression as " every officer and soldier 
claims" might signify one individual under two different de- 
signations. Whether we should say, " Every officer, and 
every soldier, claim," is a point more particularly questioned. 
We often hear correct speakers say, in common conversa- 
tion, " Every clergyman, and every physician, is by educa- 
tion a gentleman ;" and there seems to be more ease, as well 
as more precision, in this, than in the other mode of expres- 
sion. It is unquestionably, however, more agreeable to 
analogy to say, " are gentlemen." 

Note 4. — It is hot necessary, that the subjects of discourse 
be connected, or associated by conjunctions : it is sufficient, 
if the terms form a plurality of subjects to a common predi- 
cate, whether with or without any connexive word, as 
" Honour, justice, religion itself, were derided and blas- 
phemed by these profligate wretches." a In this example the 
copulative is omitted. u The king, with the lords and com- 
mons, constitute an excellent form of government." Here the 
connexive word is not a conjunction, but a preposition; and 

a The ellipsis of the copulative, in such examples, was termed by the 
ancients asyndeton ; and this deviation from the established rules of syn- 
tax they referred to a grammatical figure termed syllepsis indirecta, or 
"indirect comprehension of several singulars under one plural," opposed 
to the syllepsis directa, or that expressed by a copulative. 



168 SYNTAX. 

though the lords and commons be properly in the objective 
case, and the king therefore the only nominative to the verb, 
yet as the three subjects collectively constitute the govern- 
ment, the verb without impropriety is put in the plural num- 
ber. This phraseology, though not strictly consonant with 
the rules of concord, frequently obtains both in ancient and 
modern languages; in some cases, indeed, it seems preferable 
to the syntactical form of expression. 

Note 5. — It is to be observed, that, when a pronominal ad- 
jective, compounded with self, is joined to a verb, the simple 
pronoun, which is the real nominative, is sometimes under- 
stood. " If there be in me iniquity, slay me thyself:" 
[Bible:) i.e. "Do thou thyself slay me." 

" To know but this, that thou art good, 
And that myself am blind : " — Pope. 

that is, " that I myself am blind." 

Note 6. — Where comparison is expressed or implied, and 
not combination, the verb should be singular ; thus, " Caesar, 
as well as Cicero, was remarkable for eloquence." 

"As she laughed out, until her back, 
As well as sides, was like to crack." — Hudibras. 

Note 7. — When the nominatives are of different persons, 
the first person is preferred to the second, and the second to 
the third. In other words, / and you, I and he, are syl- 
leptically the same as we ; you and lie the same as ye. This 
observation, however, is scarcely necessary, as the verb 
plural admits no personal inflexion : it can toe useful only in 
determining what pronoun should be the representative of 
the terms collectively, as, " he and I shared it between usT 

Note 8. — In the learned languages the pronoun of the first 
person is deemed more worthy than that of the second, and 
the second than that of the third ; and hence arises the syl- 
lepsis of persons which obtains in Greek and Latin. But, 
though we admit the figure in English, we do not precisely 
adopt the arrangement of the Latins; for though, like them, 
we place the pronoun of the second person before that of the 
third, we modestly place the pronoun of the first person after 
those of the second and third. Thus, where a Roman would 



SYNTAX. 169 

say, Si tu et Tullia valetis, ego ei Cicero valemus, we should 
say, " If you and Tullia are well, Cicero and I are well." 

Rule III. — When, of two or more substantives sin- 
gular, one exclusively is the subject of discourse, a verb 
singular is required, as, " John, James, or Andrew, in- 
tends to accompany you ; " that is, one of the three, 
but not more than one. 

Note. — When the predicate is to be applied to the different 
subjects, though they be disjoined by the conjunction, they 
may be followed by a plural verb. " Neither you, nor I, are 
in fault." This is the usual form of expression. If we con- 
sider neither in its proper character, as a pronoun, we should 
say, " neither you nor I, is in fault : " neither being the no- 
minative to the verb. The former, however, is the common 
phraseology, and is analogous to the Latin idiom. " Quando 
nee gnatus, nee hie, mihi quicquam obtemperant. — Ter. Hec. 
" Id neque ego, neque tu, fecimus." — Id. " Num Lselius, 
aut qui duxit ab oppressa meritum Carthagine nomen, in- 
genio offensi ? " — Hor. 

Rule IV. — Nouns of number, or collective nouns, 
may have a singular or plural verb, thus, 

" My people do not consider," 
" My people does not consider." 

This licence, however, as Priestley observes, is not entirely 
arbitrary. If the term immediately suggest the idea of num- 
ber, the verb is preferably made plural; but, if it suggest the 
idea of a whole or unity, it should be singular. Thus it seems 
harsh and unnatural to say, " In France the peasantry goes 
barefoot, and the middle sort makes use of wooden shoes." 
It would be better to say, " the peasantry go " — " the middle 
sort make ; " because the idea is that of number. On the 
contrary, there is something incongruous and unnatural in 
these expressions : " The court of Rome were not without 
solicitude — The house of commons were of small weight — 
Stephen's party ivere entirely broken up." — Hume, 



170 SYNTAX. 

Rule V. — The adjectives this and that agree with 
their substantives in number, as, 

This man These men 

That woman Those women. 

All other adjectives are inflexible, as, 
Good man Good men. 

Note 1. — This rule is violated in such expressions as these, 
which too frequently occur, " These kind of people." " Those 
sort of goods." 

Note 2. — The substantive, with which the adjective is 
connected, is ascertained by putting the question, who, or 
what? to the adjective, as, " a ripe apple." What is ripe? 
Ans. " The appie." 

Note 3. — The inflexibility of the English adjective some- 
times occasions ambiguity, rendering it doubtful to which of 
two or more substantives the adjective refers. The defect is 
sometimes supplied by the note termed hyphen. If, for ex- 
ample, we hear a person designated " an old bookseller," we 
may be at a loss to know, whether the person intended be an 
old man who sells books, that is, " an old book-seller," or 
one who sells old books, that is, " an old-book seller." When 
we read the notice, " Lime, slate, and coal wharf," we are in- 
debted to the exercise of common sense, and not to the per- 
spicuity of the diction, for understanding what is meant by 
attaching the term wharf to all the preceding nouns, while in 
strict grammatical construction the notice might bear a dif- 
ferent signification. 

Note 4. — Every adjective has a substantive, either ex- 
pressed or understood, as "the just shall live by faith," i. e. 
" the just man ; " " few were present," i. e. " few persons." 

Note 5. — The adjective is generally placed immediately be- 
fore the substantive, as, " a learned man," " a chaste woman." 

Exc. 1. — When the adjective is closely connected with 
some other word, by which its meaning is modified or ex- 
plained, as, " a man loyal to his prince," where the attribu- 
tive loyal is closely connected with the following words. 

Exc. 2. — When the verb to be expresses simple affirma- 
tion, as, " thou art good;" or when any other verb serves as 



SYNTAX. 171 

a mere copula to unite the predicate with its subject, as, "he 
seems courageous," " it looks strange." 

Exc. 3. — For the sake of harmony, as, " Hail ! bard divine." 

Exc. 4. — When there are more adjectives than one con- 
nected with the substantive, as, " a man wise, valiant, and 
good." 

Exc. 5. — Adjectives denoting extent, whether of space or 
of time, are put after the clause expressing the measure, as, 
" a wall ten feet high," " a child three years old," " a speech 
an hour long." 

Note 6. — It has been doubted whether the cardinal should 
precede or follow the ordinal numeral. Atterbury says, in 
one of his letters to Pope, " Not but that the four first lines 
are good." We conceive the expression to be quite correct, 
though the other form, namely, " the first four," be often em- 
ployed to denote the same conception. There is no contrast 
intended between these four and any other four, otherwise he 
should have said, " The first four." If we say, " the first 
seven years," it implies a division into sevens, as takes place, 
for example, in the terms of a lease ; " the seven first years" 
implies no such division. The Latins, as far as I have ob- 
served, had only one mode of arrangement. " Itaque quin- 
que primis diebus." — Cces. B. C. i. 5. " Tribus primis die- 
bus." — lb. i. 18. That the adoption of one and the same 
collocation, in all cases, would sometimes mislead the reader, 
is evident. If we take, for example, seven objects, A, B, C, 
D, E, F, G, and say "the first, and the three last," we clearly 
refer to A, and E, F, G ; but if we say " the first and the last 
three," we may indicate A,B, C, the first three, and E, F, G, 
the last three. 

Note 7. — Each is employed to denote two things taken 
separately, and is therefore used as singular a . Either is also 
singular, and implies only one of two ; as, take either, that is 
" the one or the other, but not both." Both is a plural ad- 
jective, and denotes the two collectively. 

Note 8. — Every is an adjective singular, applied to more 
than two subjects taken individually, and comprehends them 
all. It is sometimes joined to a plural noun, when the things 
a It is sometimes used for every, and applied to more than two. 



172 SYNTAX. 

are conceived as forming one aggregate, as, every twelve 
years, i. c. " every period of twelve years." 

Note 9. — All is an adjective either singular or plural, de- 
noting the whole, whether quantity or number, as, " All men 
are mortal." " Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy 
work." 

Note 10. — Much is an adjective of quantity, and of the 
singular number, as, " much fruit." Many an adjective of 
number, and therefore plural, as, " many men." This word, 
however, is sometimes construed with a noun singular, as, 
" Many a poor man's son would have lain still." — Shakspeare. 

Note 11. — More, as the comparative of much, is singular, 
denoting a greater quantity ; as the comparative of many, it 
is plural, and signifies a greater number, as more fruit, or, 
"a greater quantity;" more men, " or a greater number." 

Note 12. — Enough is an adjective singular, and denotes 
quantity, as, " bread enough : " enow denotes number, as 
" books enow." 

Note 13. — The correlative word to the adjective such, is 
as, and not icho. There is an impropriety in saying, with 
Mr. Addison, " Such, who are lovers of mankind," instead of 
" Such as," or, " Those who." 

Note 14. — The superlative degree is followed by of, and 
also the comparative, when selection is implied, as, " Hector 
was the bravest of the Trojans." " Africanus was the greater 
of the (two) Scipios." When opposition is signified, the com- 
parative is followed by than, as, " Wisdom is better than 
wealth." 

Note 15. — There is an ambiguity in the adjective no, 
against which it is necessary to guard, and which Priestley 
seems to think that it is impossible to avoid in any language. 
Thus, if we say, " No laws are better than the English," it 
may mean either, that the absence of all law is better than 
the English laws, or that no code of jurisprudence is superior 
to the English. If the latter be the meaning intended, the 
ambiguity is removed by saying, " There are no laws better 
than the English." If the former is the sentiment to be 
expressed, we might say, " The absence of all law is prefer- 
able to the English system." 



SYNTAX. 1 73 

Note 16. — Adjectives are sometimes improperly used for 
adverbs, as indifferent well, extreme bad, for indifferently 
well, extremely had. An example of this error is also found 
in the following sentence. " He was interrogated relative to 
that circumstance." Relative is an adjective, and must have 
a substantive expressed or understood ; the question is then, 
what, or who was relative ? The answer, according to the 
rules of construction, should be he. This, however, is not the 
meaning. The word ought to be relatively. 

I am somewhat, however, inclined to think that our gram- 
marians have been hypercritical, if not chargeable with error, 
in condemning such expressions as these, exceeding great, 
exceeding strong. This phraseology, I apprehend, has been 
reprobated, partly because not conformable to the Latin 
idiom, and partly because such expressions as these, excessive 
good, extreme dear, excellent well, are justly repudiated. 
Neither of these, however, can be deemed a sufficient reason 
for condemning this phraseology. For when it is said, " His 
strength was exceeding great," may not the expression be 
considered as elliptical, the word exceeding being construed 
as a participle, thus, "his strength was exceeding," or " sur- 
passing great strength," that is, " his strength exceeded great 
strength." a So Shakspeare says, "it was passing strange." 
Though exceedingly strong, exceedingly good, are now con- 
sidered to be the preferable phraseologies, there can be no 

a In the vulgar translation of the Bible, this mode of expression fre- 
quently occurs, thus, "lam thy exceeding great reward." " I will make 
thee exceeding fruitful." 

Wallis's admission of this phraseology proves it to have been good 
English when he wrote, or that, in his opinion at least, it was unobjec- 
tionable. His translation of vir siimme sapiens, is " a man exceeding 
wise." This, and similar modes of expression, appear to have been in 
his time very common, thus, 

" Athough he was exceeding wealthy." — Peers. 

" He was moreover extraordinary courteous." — Ibid. 

" The Athenians were extreme apprehensive of his growing power."— 
Tully. 

And in our version of the Bible we find a few such expressions as the 
following : " The house I am to build, shall be wonderful great." 

Addison likewise often uses the phrase " exceeding great;" and Swift^ 
less pardonably, writes " extreme unwilling," " extreme good." 



174 SYNTAX. 

doubt, as Webster has observed, that adjectives are sometimes 
used to modify the sense of other adjectives ; thus we say, " red 
hot," " a closer grained wood," " a sharper edged sword." 

In connection with the preceding note, we would here 
observe, that adjectives are used to modify the meaning of 
the verbs to which they refer ; thus we say, " Open thy hand 
wide."— Bible. "Cry shrill with thy voice."— lb. "He 
fought hard for his life." The use of the kindred adverbs, 
as will be afterwards shown, would in many instances ma- 
terially alter the meaning. 

Rule VI. — The article a or an is joined to nouns 
of the singular number only, or nouns denoting a 
plurality of things in one aggregate, as, 

A man An army A thousand A few. 

Note 1. — To distinguish between the use of a and an, it 
is usually given as a general rule that a be placed before 
consonants and h aspirated, and an before vowels and h 
not aspirated, as a table, a hat, an oak, an heir. In respect 
to a before h aspirated, it must be observed, that usage is 
divided. It would appear that, when the Bible was translated, 
and the Liturgy composed, an was almost universally used 
before h, whether the aspirate belonged to an emphatic or 
an unemphatic syllable. A change has since taken place; 
and some give it as a rule, to put a before h, when the 
syllable is emphatic, and an when the syllable has not the 
emphasis. This rule, however, is not universally observed ; 
some writing " a history," others " an history ;" some writing 
" a hypothesis," others " an hypothesis." As far as easy 
pronunciation is concerned, or the practice of Greek and 
Hornan writers may furnish a precedent, there seems to be 
no solid objection to either of these modes. The former is 
more common in Scotch and Irish writers than it is in 
English authors, with whom the aspiration is less forcible, 
and less common. 

An is used before a vowel; but from this rule two devia- 
tions are admitted. Before the simple sound of u, followed 
by another vowel sound, whether signified or not, a and not 



SYNTAX. 175 

an is used. Thus we say, " such a one," " such a woman." 
If the sound of " one " be analyzed, we shall find it resolvable 
into oo-iin or won, as some orthoepists have expressed it; 
and woman into oo-umman. Again, before the diphthongal 
sound of eu, in whatsoever manner that sound may be noted, 
a may be, and frequently is, used. Thus we say, " a youth," 
"a yeoman," "a eunuch," "a unicorn." Sheridan, indeed, 
contends, that all words beginning with, it, when it has the 
diphthongal sound of eu, should be preceded by a and not 
an. And here I must remark, that it is with no common 
surprise, I find Webster, in his introduction to his Dictionary, 
denying that the vowel u is anywhere equivalent to eu or e-oo. 
Who those public speakers are, whom, he says, he heard in 
England, and to whose authority he appeals, we are utterly 
at a loss to conjecture. But this we confidently affirm, that 
there is no orthoepist, no public orator, nay, not an individual 
in any rank of society, who does not distinguish between the 
sound of u in brute, rude, intrude, and in cube, fume, cure. 
His reference to Johnson, who says that u is long in con- 
fusion, and short in discussion, is irrelevant and nugatory. 
Dr. Webster surely has not to learn, that the vowel may be 
long, whether the sound be monophthongal, or diphthongal. 
It is strange, too, that in the very example which he quotes 
from Johnson, the u has the diphthongal sound, which, he, 
notwithstanding, denies as anywhere existing. 

Note 2. — A is employed to express one individual of a 
species without determining who or which; the denotes some 
particular individual or individuals ; thus, " a book " means 
any book, " the book" some particular book ; and when both 
articles are omitted the whole class is signified, as, " Man is 
born unto trouble," i. e. " all men." Hobbes errs against 
this rule when he says, " God Almighty has given reason to 
a man, to be a light to him." The article should be sup- 
pressed. Pope commits a similar error when he writes, 

" Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel." 

It is not any wheel that he meant to express, but a known 
instrument of torture, or " the wheel." 

The article a serves to distinguish between two subjects 



176 SYNTAX. 

compared with each other, and two subjects compared with 
a third. "He is the author of two works of a different 
character." If the writer meant to say that he was the 
author of two works of a different character from that of one 
previously mentioned, the expression would be correct. But 
he intended to signify a dissimilarity between the two pro- 
ductions. He should, therefore, have omitted the article, 
and said, " of different character," or " of different cha- 
racters." 

Note 3. — The indefinite article, though generally placed 
before the adjective, as, "a good man," is put after the " ad- 
jective such ; and where these words of comparison occur, 
as, so, too, how, its place is between the adjective and sub- 
stantive, thus, " Such a gift is too small a reward for so great 
a service." When the order is inverted, this rule is not 
observed, as " a reward so small," " a service so great." The 
definite article is likewise placed before the adjective, as 
"the great king." All is the only adjective which precedes 
the article. " All the servants," " all the money." 

Note 4. — Pronouns and proper names do not admit the 
definite article, themselves sufficiently determining the sub- 
ject of discourse ; thus we cannot say, the I, the Alexander. 
If we employ the definite article with a proper name, an 
ellipsis is involved ; thus, if I say, he commands the Ccesar, 
I mean, he commands the ship called " Caesar." 

Note 5. — The definite article is used to distinguish the ex- 
plicative from the determinative sense. The omission of the 
article, when the sense is restricted, creates ambiguity. For 
this reason the following sentence is faulty : " All words, 
which are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake." 
— Bolingbroke. Here the clause, " which are signs of com- 
plex ideas," is not explicative, but restrictive ; for all words 
are not signs of complex ideas. It should, therefore, be " all 
the," or " all those words, which are signs of complex ideas, 
furnish matter of mistake." 

" In all cases of prescription, the universal practice of 
judges is to direct juries by analogy to the Statute of Limita- 
tions, to decide against incorporeal rights, which for many 
years have been relinquished." — Erskine on the Rights of 






SYNTAX. 177 

Juries. This sentence is chargeable at once with ambiguity 
and error. In the first place, it is doubtful whether a regard 
to this analogy governs the directions of the judge, or is to 
rule the decision of the jury. 2ndly. By the omission of the 
definite article, or the word those before the antecedent, he 
has rendered the relative clause explicative, instead of being 
restrictive ; for, as all incorporeal rights are not abolished, 
he should have said, " against those incorporeal rights." 

There are certain cases, indeed, in which the antecedent 
clause admits the definite article, though the relative clause 
be not restrictive, thus, 

" Blest are the pure, whose hearts are clean 
From the defiling power of sin." 

Here the relative clause is merely explanatory, yet the ante- 
cedent admits the article. Thus also, in the following sen- 
tence, " My goodness extendeth not to thee, but to the saints, 
and the excellent ones, in whom is all my delight." The 
relative clause is not intended to limit the meaning of the 
antecedent terms, and yet they admit the definite article. In 
all examples, therefore, like these, where the explanatory 
meaning admits the article, it is necessary, for the sake of 
perspicuity, to mark the determinative sense by the emphatic 
words that or those. Thus, had the clause been determina- 
tive in the latter of these examples, it would have been neces- 
sary to say, " those saints, and those excellent ones, in whom 
is my delight." 

Note 6. — The definite article is likewise used to distinguish 
between things which are individually different, but have 
one generic name, and things which are, in truth, one and 
the same, but are characterized by several qualities. For ex- 
ample, if I should say, " the red and blue vestments were 
most admired," it may be doubtful whether I mean that the 
union of red and blue in the same vestments was most ad- 
mired, or that the red and the blue vestments were both more 
admired than the rest. In strictness of speech, the former is 
the only proper meaning of the words, though the latter sen- 
timent be often thus expressed. If the latter be intended, 
we should say, " the red vestments and the blue," or " the 
red and the blue vestments," where the article is repeated. 

N 



178 SYNTAX. 

If I say, " the red and blue vestments," it is obvious that 
only one subject is expressed, namely, " vestments," charac- 
terized by two qualities, "redness," and "blueness," as com- 
bined in the subject. Here the subject is one ; its qualities 
are plural. If I say, " the red vestments and the blue," or 
" the red and the blue vestments," the subjects are plural, 
expressed, however, by one generic name, vestments. 

In the same manner, if we say r "the ecclesiastical and se- 
cular powers concurred in this measure," the expression is 
ambiguous, as far as language can render it such. The 
reader's knowledge, as Dr. Campbell observes, may prevent 
his mistaking it; but, if such modes of expression be ad- 
mitted, where the sense is clear, they may inadvertently be 
imitated in cases, where the meaning would be obscure, if not 
entirely misunderstood. The error might have been avoided, 
either by repeating the substantive, or by subjoining the sub- 
stantive to the first adjective, and prefixing the articles to 
both adjectives; or by placing the substantives after both ad- 
jectives, the article being prefixed in the same manner ; thus, 
" the ecclesiastical powers, and the secular powers," or better, 
" the ecclesiastical powers, and the secular," or " the eccle- 
siastical, and the secular powers." The repetition of the 
article shows, that the second adjective is not an additional 
epithet to the same subject, but belongs to a subject totally 
different, though expressed by the same generic name. 
" The lords spiritual and temporal," is a phraseology objec- 
tionable on the same principle, though now so long sanc- 
tioned by usage, that we dare hardly question its propriety. 
The subjects are different, though they have but one generic 
name. It should therefore be, " the spiritual and the tem- 
poral lords." 

On the contrary, when two or more adjectives belong as 
epithets to one and the same thing, the other arrangement 
is to be preferred. Thus, "the high and mighty states." 
Here both epithets belong to one subject. " The states high 
and mighty," would convey the same idea. 

Where the article is not used, the place of the substantive 
ought to show, whether both adjectives belong to the same 
thing, or to different things having the same generic name. 



SYNTAX. 179 

u Like an householder, who bringeth out of his treasure 
things new and old." This arrangement is faulty ; both epi- 
thets cannot belong to the same subject. It should be, " new 
things and old." 

If both adjectives belong to one and the same subject, the 
substantive ought either to precede both adjectives, or to 
follow both, the article being uniformly omitted before the 
second adjective, whether prefixed to the substantive before 
the first, or suppressed. If, on the contrary, they belong to 
different subjects, with the same name, the substantive ought 
to follow the first adjective, and may be either repeated after 
the second, or understood ; or it should follow both adjectives, 
the article being prefixed to each of them. 

Note 7. — The omission, or the insertion of the indefinite 
article, in some instances, nearly reverses the meaning; thus, 

" Ah, little think the gay, licentious proud." — Thomson. 

Here little is equivalent to " not much," or rather by a com- 
mon trope it denotes not at all. Locke says, " I leave him to 
reconcile these contradictions, which may be plentifully found 
in him by any one, who reads with but a little attention." 
Here, on the contrary, where the indefinite article is inserted, 
" a little" means " not none," or " some." 

In like manner, when it is said, " Strait is the gate, and 
narrow is the way, and few there be that find it ;" few is op- 
posed to many. Thus also, " Many are called, but few are 
chosen." But when it is said, " Tarry a few days, till thy 
brother's fury turn j" a few is here equivalent to some, not as 
opposed to many, but as opposed to not none. If we say, "feiv 
accompanied the prince," we seem to diminish the number, 
and represent it as inconsiderable, as if we said, " not many," 
or " fewer than expectation : " if we say, a few, we seem to 
amplify; — we represent the number as not unworthy of at- 
tention, or as equal, at least, if not superior to expectation. 
In short, if the article be inserted, the clause is equivalent to 
a double negative, and thus it serves to amplify; if the ar- 
ticle be suppressed, the expression has either a diminutive or 
a negative import. 

Note 8. — The indefinite article has, sometimes, the mcan- 

N 2 



180 SYNTAX. 

ing of every or each ; thus, " they cost five shillings a dozen," 
that is, " every dozen." 

" What makes all doctrines plain and clear? 
About two hundred pounds a year." — Hudibras. 

That is, " every year." 

Note 9. — There is a particular use of this article, which 
merits attention, as ambiguity may thus, in many cases, be 
avoided. In denoting comparison, when the article is sup- 
pressed before the second term, the latter, though it may be 
an appellative, assumes the character of an attributive, and 
becomes the predicate of the subject, or first term. If, on the 
contrary, the second term be prefaced with the article, it con- 
tinues an appellative, and forms the other subject of compari- 
son. In the former case, the subject, as possessing different 
qualities in various degrees, is compared with itself; in the 
latter, it is compared with something else. 

Thus, if we say, " he is a better soldier than scholar," the 
article is suppressed before the second term, and the expres- 
sion is equivalent to, " he is more warlike than learned," or 
"he possesses the qualities, which form the soldier, in a 
greater degree than those, which constitute the scholar." If, 
we say, " he would make a better soldier, than a scholar," 
here the article is prefixed to the second term ; this term, 
therefore, retains the character of an appellative, and forms 
the second subject of comparison. The meaning accordingly 
is, " he would make a better soldier, than a scholar would 
make ;" that is, " he has more of the constituent qualities of 
a soldier, than are to be found in any literary man." 

Pope commits a similar error, when, in one of his letters to 
Atterbury, he says, " You thought me not a worse man than 
a poet." This strictly means " a worse man than a poet is ; " 
whereas he intended to say, that his moral qualities were not 
inferior to his poetical genius. He should have said, " a 
worse man than poet." 

These two phraseologies are frequently confounded, which 
seldom fails to create ambiguity. Baker erroneously con- 
siders them as equivalent, and prefers that, in which the arti- 
cle is omitted before the second substantive. When there 
are two subjects with one predicate, the article should be in- 



SYNTAX. 181 

serted ; but when there is one subject with two predicates, it 
should be omitted. 

Note 10. — Perspicuity in like manner requires, that, when 
an additional epithet or description of the same subject is in- 
tended, the definite article should not be employed. It is by 
an attention to this rule, that we clearly distinguish between 
subject and predicate. For this reason the following sentence 
appears to me faulty : " The apostle James, the son of Zebe- 
dee, and the brother of St. John, would be declared the apos- 
tle of the Britons." — Henry s History of Britain. It should 
be rather, " and brother of St. John." When a diversity of 
persons, or a change of subject is intended to be expressed, 
the definite article is necessarily employed, as " Cincinnatus 
the dictator, and the master of horse, marched against the 
^Equi." The definite article before the latter appellative 
marks the diversity of subject, and clearly shows that two 
persons are designed. Were the article omitted, the expres- 
sion would imply, that the dictator, and the master of horse, 
were one and the same individual. 

Rule VII. — Substantives signifying the same thing 
agree in case, thus, " I, George the Third, king of 
Great Britain, defender of the faith." The words /, 
George, ki?ig, defender, are all considered as the nomi- 
native case. " The chief of the princes, he who defied 
the bravest of the enemy, was assassinated by a das- 
tardly villain:" where the pronoun he agrees in case 
with the preceding term chief. This rule, however, 
may be deemed unnecessary, as all such expressions are 
elliptical ; thus, " the chief of the princes was assassi- 
nated," " he was assassinated." " He was the son of 
the Rev. Dr. West, perhaps him who published Pindar 
at Oxford." — Johnson' s Life of West That is, "the 
son of him." Were the pronoun in the nominative case, 
it would refer to the son, and not the father, and thus 
convey a very different meaning. 

Note 1. — As proper names are, by the trope antonomasia, 



182 SYNTAX. 

frequently used for appellatives, as when we say, " the So- 
crates of the present age," where Socrates is equivalent to 
" the wisest man," so also appellatives have frequently the 
meaning and force of attributives. Thus, if we say, " he is 
a soldier," it means either that he is by profession a soldier, 
or that he possesses all the qualities of a military man, whe- 
ther professionally a soldier or not. According to the former 
acceptation of the term, it is a mere appellative; agreeably to 
the latter, it has the force of an attributive. 

Note 2. — Two or more substantives in concordance, and 
forming one complex name, or a name and title, have the 
plural termination annexed to the last only, as, " the tico 
Miss Louisa Howards, the two Miss Thomsons" Analogy, Dr. 
Priestley observes, would plead in favour of another construc- 
tion, and lead us to say, the two Misses Thomson, the two 
Misses Louisa Howard; for if the ellipsis were supplied, we 
should say, " the two young ladies of the name of Thomson," 
and this construction he adds, he has somewhere met with. 

The latter form of expression, it is true, occasionally oc- 
curs ; but, general usage, and, I am rather inclined to think, 
analogy likewise, decide in favour of the former ; for, with a 
few exceptions, and these not parallel to the examples now 
given a , we almost uniformly, in complex names, confine the 
inflexion to the last substantive. Some proofs of this we 
shall afterwards have an opportunity of offering. I would 
also observe, in passing, that ellipsis and analogy are different 
principles, and should be carefully distinguished. 

Rule VIII. — One substantive governs another, 
signifying a different thing, in the genitive, as, 
The tyrant's rage. The apostle's feet. 

Note 1. — This rule takes place when property, possession, 
or the general relation, by which one thing appertains to an- 
other, is implied. 

Note 2. — It may be considered as violated in such examples 
as these, "Longinus his Treatise on the Sublime." — Addison. 
" Christ his sake." — Common Prayer. 

a We say, indeed, "Messrs. Thomson;" but we seldom or never say, 
"the two Messrs. Thomson," but "the two Mr. Thomsons" 



SYNTAX. 183 

Note 3.— Substantives govern not only nouns, but likewise 
pronouns, as, " its strength," " his reward." 

Note 4. — This case is generally resolvable into the objec- 
tive with the preposition of, as, " the king's sceptre," or " the 
sceptre of the king ;" " his head," or " the head of him." I 
have said generally, for it is not always thus resolvable. For 
example, the Christian sabbath is sometimes named, " the 
Lord's day ;" but " the day of the Lord" conveys a different 
idea, and denotes "the day of judgment." 

Note 5. — The latter or governing substantive is frequently 
understood, as, " the king will come to St. James's to-mor- 
row," that is, " St. James's palace." I found him at the 
stationer's," that is, "the stationer's shop," or "the sta- 
tioner's house." 

Note 6. — When a single subject is expressed as the com- 
mon property of two or more persons, the last only takes 
the sign of the genitive, as, "this is John, William, and 
Richard's house;" that is, "this is the house of John, Wil- 
liam, and Richard." But when several subjects are implied, 
as severally belonging to various individuals, the names of 
the individuals are all expressed in the genitive case, as 
" these are John's, William's, and Richard's houses." In such 
examples as these, the use of the genitive involves an ambi- 
guity, which it is sometimes difficult to prevent. Thus, if we 
say, agreeably to the first observation in this note, " Abra- 
ham, Isaac, and Jacob's posterity were carried captive to 
Babylon," one unacquainted with the history of these patri- 
archs, might be at a loss to determine whether " the patri- 
arch Abraham," " the patriarch Isaac," and " the posterity 
of Jacob," were carried captive; in other words, whether 
there be three subjects of discourse, namely, Abraham, Isaac, 
and the posterity of Jacob, or only one subject, the posterity 
of the patriarchs. Nor will the insertion of the preposition 
in all cases prevent the ambiguity. For, in the example be- 
fore us, were the word " descendants " substituted for " pos- 
terity," and the phrase to proceed thus, "the descendants 
of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob," an ignorant reader 
might be led to suppose that not one generation of descend- 
ants, but three distinct generations of these three individuals 



184 SYNTAX. 

were carried into captivity. If we say, " the posterity of 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," the expression appears to me 
liable to the same misconstruction with the one first men- 
tioned. If we say, "the common posterity of Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob, were carried captive to Babylon," all am- 
biguity of expression is prevented. 

Instead also of saying, " John, William, and Richard's 
house," I should prefer " a house belonging in common to 
John, William, and Richard." This expression, though 
laborious and heavy, is preferable to the inelegance and 
harshness of three inflected substantives, while it removes 
the ambiguity, which might in some cases be occasioned by 
withholding the inflexion from the two first substantives. 
Where neatness and perspicuity cannot possibly be com- 
bined, it will not be questioned which we ought to prefer. 
I observe, also, that though such phraseologies as this, 
" John's, William's, and Richard's houses," be perfectly con- 
sonant with syntactical propriety, and strictly analogous to 
the established phraseology, "his, Richard's, and my houses," 
yet, as there appears something uncouth in the former ex- 
pression, it would be better to say, " the houses belonging in 
common, or severally (as the meaning may be) to John, 
William, and Richard." 

Note 7. — When a name is complex, that is, consisting of 
more terms than one, the last only admits the sign of the 
genitive, as, " Julius Caesar's Commentaries," " John the 
Baptist's head," " for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's 
wife." 

Note 8. — When a short explanatory term is subjoined to 
a name, it matters little to which the inflexion be annexed, 
as, " I left the parcel at Mr. Johnson, the bookseller's, or 
" at Mr. Johnson's, the bookseller." But if the explanatory 
term be complex, or if there are more explanatory terms than 
one, the sign of the genitive must be affixed to the name, or 
first substantive, thus, " I left the book at Johnson's, a re- 
spectable bookseller, a worthy man, and an old friend." In 
the same manner we should say, " this psalm is David's, the 
king, priest, and prophet of the people," and not " this 
psalm is David, the king, priest, and prophet of the people's." 



SYNTAX, 185 

Note 9. — In some cases we employ both the genitive and 
a preposition, as " this is a friend of the king's," elliptically, 
for " this is a friend of the king's friends." We say also, " this 
is a friend of the king." These forms of expression, how- 
ever, though in many cases equivalent, sometimes imply dif- 
ferent ideas. Thus, if I say, " this is a picture of my friend," 
it means, "this is an image, likeness, or representation of my 
friend." If I say, " This is a picture of my friend's," it 
means, " this picture belongs to my friend." 

As the double genitive involves an ellipsis, and implies 
part of a whole, or one of a plurality of subjects, I think 
the use of it should be avoided, unless in cases where this 
plurality may be implied. Thus we may say, " a kinsman 
of the traitor's waited on him yesterday," it being implied 
that the traitor had several or many kinsmen. The expres- 
sion is equivalent to " a kinsman of the traitor's kinsmen." 
But, if the subject possessed were singular, or the only one 
of the kind, I should recommend the use of the simple 
genitive ; thus, if he had only one house, I should say, " this 
is the house of the traitor," or " this is the traitor's house ;" 
but not " this is a house of the traitor's." 

Note 10. — The recurrence of the analytical expression, 
and likewise of the simple genitive, should be carefully 
avoided. Thus, there is something inelegant and offensive 
in the following sentence, " the severity of the distress of the 
son of the king touched the nation." Much better, " the 
severe distress of the king's son touched the nation." 

Note 11. — There is sometimes an abrupt vulgarity, or un- 
couthness, in the use of the simple genitive. Thus, in " the 
army's name," the commons' vote," " the lords' house," ex- 
pressions of Mr. Hume, there is a manifest want of dignity 
and of elegance. Much better, " the name of the army," 
" the vote of the commons," " the house of lords." 

Rule IX. — Pronouns agree with their antecedents, 
or the nouns which they represent, in gender, number, 
and person, as, " They respected Cato and his party," 
where Cato is singular and masculine, and his agrees 
with it in gender and number. " He addressed you 



186 SYNTAX. 

and me, and desired us to follow him," where us syl- 
leptically represents the two persons. " Thou, who 
writest." Here the antecedent thou being a person, 
the relative who, not which, is employed. The an- 
tecedent also being of the second person and singular 
number, the relative is considered as of the same cha- 
racter, and is therefore followed by the verb in the se- 
cond person and singular number. " Vice, which no 
man practises with impunity, proved his destruction." 
Here the antecedent vice not being a person, the pro- 
noun which, of the neuter gender, is therefore em- 
ployed. " The rivers, which flow into the sea." Here 
also the antecedent not being a person, the relative is 
which. It is also considered as in the plural number ; 
and, as all substantives arc joined to the third person, 
which, the representative of rivers, is joined to the 
third person plural of the verb. 

Note 1. — This rule is transgressed in the following ex- 
amples : " Beware of false prophets, whjch come to you in 
sheep's clothing." " The fruit tree bearing fruit after his 
kind." " There was indeed in our destinies such a con- 
formity, as seldom is found in that of two persons in the 
same age." Here that, referring to destinies, is put for those. 
" The crown had it in their power to give such rewards as 
they thought proper." — Parliamentary Debates. 

Note 2. — The relative should be placed as near as possible 
to the antecedent, otherwise ambiguity is sometimes oc- 
casioned. 

Note 3. — In the earlier editions of Murray's Grammar, we 
find the following rule : " When the relative is preceded by 
two nominatives of different persons, it may agree in person 
with either, as, ' I am the man who commands you, 1 or ' I 
am the man who command you.' " The rule here given is 
erroneous. The construction is by no means arbitrary. If 
we say, u I am the man who commands you," the relative 
clause, with the antecedent man, form the predicate ; and 



SYNTAX. 187 

the sentence is equivalent to " I am your commander." If 
we say, " I am the man who command you," the man simply 
is the predicate, and / who command you the subject ; thus, 
" I who command you," or " I your commander am the man." 
This error, sufficiently obvious to every discerning reader, I 
pointed out in the former edition of this Treatise. Murray's 
rule, as it stood, is clearly repugnant to perspicuity, and syn- 
tactical correctness. 

In the last edition of his Grammar, and, I believe, in every 
edition posterior to the publication of the " Etymology and 
Syntax," the rule is altered ; but whether from a disinclina- 
tion to expunge a rule, which he had once delivered — a dis- 
inclination perhaps accompanied with a belief, that it might 
be corrected with little prejudice to its original form, or from 
what other motive he has left it in its present state, I will 
not presume to determine ; but in the alteration, which he 
has introduced, he appears to me to have consulted neither 
usefulness nor perspicuity. He says, " When the relative is 
preceded by two nominatives of different persons, it may 
agree in person with either." So far he has transcribed the 
former rule ; but he adds, " according to the sense." Now 
it cannot be questioned, and the learner needs not to be in- 
formed, that the relative may agree with either. If after 
having taught the learner, that a Latin adjective must agree 
with its substantive, we were to add, as a distinct rule, that 
it may agree with either of the two substantives, according to 
the sense, I apprehend, we should be chargeable with vain 
repetition, or with extreme inattention to correctness and 
precision. For what would our rule imply ? Clearly nothing 
more, than that the adjective is capable of agreeing with the 
substantive to which it belongs ; and of this capacity no 
scholar, who had learned to decline an adjective, could pos- 
sibly be ignorant ; or it might convey some idea, that the 
concord is optional. Now, is it not certain, that the adjective 
must agree with its proper substantive, namely, that whose 
meaning it is intended to modify, and no other ? The re- 
lative, in like manner, must agree with that antecedent, and 
that only, whose representative it is in the relative clause. 
There is nothing arbitrary in either the one case, or the other. 



188 SYNTAX. 

Perhaps it may be answered that, though the former part 
of the altered rule leaves the concord as it first stood, discre- 
tionary, the latter confines the agreement of the relative to 
its proper antecedent. But why this apparent contrariety? 
Why is that represented as arbitrary, which is determined by 
the sense ? This, however, is not the only objection ; for it 
may be affirmed, without hesitation, that the rule, thus con- 
sidered, is completely superfluous. For the learner has been 
already told, that the relative agrees with the antecedent in 
gender, number, and person. And can the antecedent be any 
other, than that which the sense indicates ? And what does 
this rule teach ? Precisely the same thing. The rule, there- 
fore, is either calculated to mislead by representing as arbi- 
trary what is fixed and determinate, or it is purely a rule of 
supererogation. As it stood originally, it gave some new in- 
formation ; but that information was erroneous : as it stands 
now, it is either indefinite, or it is useless. 

The scholar may require an admonition, when there arc 
two antecedents of different persons, to be careful in referring 
the relative to its proper antecedent ; but to tell him that it 
may agree with the one, or the other, according to the sense, 
is to tell him nothing, or tell him that, which he already 
knows. In the examples just now adduced, the termination 
of the verb, by indicating the person of the relative, clearly 
shows the antecedent; but, where the substantives are of the 
same person, and the verb cannot therefore by its termination 
indicate the antecedent, ambiguity should be precluded by 
the mode of arrangement. Thus, " He is the hero who did 
it," and " He who did it is the hero." In the former, he is 
the subject, and the hero who did it the predicate ; and in 
the latter, he who did it is the subject, and the hero the pre- 
dicate. 

Note 4. — The relative, instead of referring to any particu- 
lar word as its antecedent, sometimes refers to a whole clause, 
thus, " the bill was rejected by the lords, which excited no 
small degree of jealousy and discontent," that is, " which 
thing," namely, the rejection of the bill. 

Note 5. — The antecedent pronoun of the third person is 
often suppressed, when no particular emphasis is implied ; 



SYNTAX. 189 

as, " Who steals my purse, steals trash," i. e. " he," or " the 
man, who." " Whom he would he slew ; and whom he 
would he kept alive," Bible ; i. e. " Those whom he would." 
"Whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin." In this 
example the antecedent he, and nominative to the principal 
verb, is understood. 

Priestley has remarked that the pronouns whoever and who- 
soever have sometimes a double construction. He gives the 
two following examples. "Elizabeth publicly threatened 
that she would have the head of whoever had advised it." — ■ 
Hume. " He offered a great recompense to whomsoever 
would help him to a sight of him." — Hume. Though the 
learned author seems to admit both these modes of construc- 
tion, we apprehend that only one of them is grammatical. 
It has been just now observed that the antecedent is often 
understood to the relative who, and to the compounds who- 
ever and whosoever. If the antecedent be supplied, it will 
be found that the construction is not arbitrary, as Priestley 
supposes, but definite and fixed. The first sentence is cor- 
rect. " She would have the head of him, or them, whoever 
had advised," the relative being the nominative to the verb. 
" He offered a great recompense to him, or them, whosoever 
should help him." Whomsoever is a solecism : though close 
to the preposition to, it is not under its government. (See the 
following rules.) 

Rule X. — If no nominative intervene between the 
relative and the verb, the relative shall be the nomi- 
native to the verb, as, " Solomon, who was the son of 
David, built the temple of Jerusalem." Here who is 
the nominative to the verb was. 

Rule XL — But, if a nominative intervene between 
the relative and the verb, the relative shall be under the 
government of the preposition going before, or the noun 
or verb following, as, " God, whom we worship, is the 
Lord, by whose gift we live, and by whom all things 
were made." In the first relative clause, where tue is 



r 



190 SYNTAX. 

the intervening nominative, the relative is in the ob- 
jective case, and governed by the verb following: in the 
second clause, where the intervening nominative is 
likewise we, the relative is in the genitive case, and go- 
verned by the noun following, thus, " by whose gift," or 
" by the gift of whom ;" and in the third clause, where 
things is the intervening nominative, the relative is in 
the objective case, and governed by the preposition. 

Note 1. — The case of the relative may always be ascer- 
tained by repeating the antecedent, and arranging the clause 
in the natural order, thus, " the city, which is called Home, 
was founded by Romulus," i. e. " the city, which city is 
called Rome." The antecedent repeated is the nominative to 
the verb is, which therefore agrees with it in case. " God, 
who sees all things, will punish the wicked," i. e. " God, 
which God sees all things ; " the relative, therefore, is the no- 
minative to the verb sees, that is, it is in the same case in 
which the antecedent would be put, if again expressed. " So- 
lomon, whom David loved, was the wisest of princes." Here, 
if we arrange the relative clause in the natural order, begin- 
ning with the nominative and the verb, it will run thus, 
" David loved whom," an expression analogous to " David 
loved him," or " David loved which Solomon." Many sole- 
cisms in the construction of the relative would be easily 
avoided, by a little attention to the natural arrangement. 
Thus, instead of committing the error involved in the follow- 
ing examples, " The philosopher, who he saw to be a man of 
profound knowledge," " 'Twas my brother, who you met 
with," " I was a stranger to the person, who I spoke to," we 
should be led by the natural order to the correct phraseology; 
"he saw whom," " you met with whom," " I spoke to whom." 
It is to be observed, however, that, though the personal pro- 
nouns, when under the government of a verb, may either 
precede or follow it, the relative in the same state of govern- 
ment must invariably go before it. 

Note 2. — The relatives who and which are often under- 
stood, especially in colloquial language " The friend I 



SYNTAX. 191 

visited yesterday is dead to-day," i. e. " the friend whom I 
visited yesterday is dead to-day." 

Note 3. — After a comparative, both relative and antecedent 
are often understood. " The damage was far greater than 
he knew." Here there is a comparison of two objects, the 
damage suffered, and the damage known ; but only one is 
expressed. The sentence, if the ellipsis were supplied, would 
run thus, " The damage was far greater, than what," or " that, 
which he knew." 

Note 4. — There are a few cases, which are considered by 
some distinguished critics and grammarians, as requiring 
the use of that in preference to the pronouns who and 
which. 

1st. After superlatives the pronoun that is generally used, 
as, " The wisest man, that ever lived, is liable to error." 

2ndly. After the word same, that is generally used, as, " he 
is the same man, that you saw yesterday." But, if a pre- 
position should precede the relative, one of the other two 
pronouns must be employed, the pronoun that not admitting 
a preposition prefixed to it, as, " he is the same man, with 
whom you were acquainted." It is remarkable, however, 
that when the arrrangement is somewhat changed, the word 
that admits the preposition, as, " he is the same man, that 
you were acquainted with." 

3rdly. That is used after who, taken interrogatively, as, 
" Who, that has the spirit of a man, would suffer himself to 
be thus degraded ? " 

4thly. When persons and things are referred to, as, "the 
men and things, that he hath studied, have not contributed 
to the improvement of his morals." 

Rule XII. — An active transitive verb governs the 
accusative or objective case, as, 

" He teaches me." 
" We honour him." 

Note 1. — As examples of transgression against this rule, 
we may adduce the following: " Who do I love so much?" 
■ — Skakspeare. " Who should I meet the other day, but my 



192 SYNTAX. 

old friend ? " — Spectator. " Those, who he thought true to 
his party." — Clarendon. 

Note 2. As substantives have no objective case, the sub- 
ject or object of the energy or affection is distinguished by its 
place, which is after the verb, as " Achilles slew Hector," 
where Achilles, the agent, precedes, and Hector, the subject 
of the action, follows the verb. Reverse this order, and the 
meaning is reversed, as " Hector slew Achilles." Where 
the proper arrangement is not observed, ambiguity or mis- 
construction is frequently produced. Thus, when Pope says, 
Odyss. xix. 

" And thus the son the fervent sire address'cl," 

it may be asked, did the son address the sire, or the sire ad- 
dress the son ? A little attention would have prevented the 
ambiguity. If the sire addressed the son, the line should 
run thus, 

" And thus his son the fervent sire address'd." 

If the son addressed the sire, 

" And thus the son his fervent sire address'd." 

Note 3. — An active intransitive verb sometimes governs 
the objective case of a noun, of the same or a kindred sig- 
nification, as, " Let us run the race, which is set before us." 
" If any man see his brother sin a sin, which is not unto 
death." — Bible. The latter verb, however, though thus used, 
must not be employed in a transitive sense. It is an error, 
therefore, to say, "What have I sinned ?" — Bible. It should 
be, " How ?" or " In what ?" Some intransitive verbs also, 
when used in a reflex sense, are joined to an objective case, 
as, " Then having shown his wounds, he'd sit him down." — 
Home's Douglas. This is a poetic licence, which, in a prose 
writer, would not be tolerated, unless in colloquial and very 
familiar language. 

Note 4. — The objective case should not, if possible, be 
separated from its verb. This rule is violated in the follow- 
ing sentence : " Becket could not better discover, than by 
attacking so powerful an interest, his resolution to maintain," 
&c. — Hume. The regimen is here unnecessarily, and very 
inelegantly, separated from its verb. 



SYNTAX. 193 

Rule XIII. — Verbs signifying to ask, teach, offer, 
promise, pay, tell, allow, deny, and some others of like 
signification, are sometimes, especially in colloquial 
language, followed in the passive voice by an objective 
case. 

Note 1. — This rule seems to have escaped the attention of 
all our English grammarians, except Priestley, who observes, 
" that in some familiar phrases, the subject and object of our 
affirmation seem to be transposed." This idiom, except in 
a very few instances, is not to be found in Latin, though it 
occurs pretty often in Greek : it therefore particularly merits 
the attention of the junior Latin scholar, lest in his Anglo- 
Latin translations it should betray him into an egregious 
solecism. " He allowed me great liberty," turned passively, 
in concurrence with the Latin idiom, " great liberty was al- 
lowed me." But we say also in English, "I was allowed 
great liberty." " He promised (to) me a ship in five days," 
passively, " a ship was promised me," and " I was promised 
her in five days." " She would not accept the jewels, though 
they were offered to her by her mother," or, " though she 
was offered them by her mother." 

Note 2. — After verbs of giving, telling, sending, promising, 
offering, and others of like signification, the thing is very 
generally placed before the person. In the time of Swift 
and Addison this rule was not uniformly observed. We find 
authors of that period saying indiscriminately, " Give it us," 
and " Give us it ;" " Tell him it," and " Tell it him ; " " He 
promised me it," and " He promised it me." In Scotland 
these two modes of expression still obtain. In England 
they are now reduced under one general rule. We say, 
" Give it me," " Tell it him," " He sent it us." 

Rule XIV. — The verb to be has the same case 
after it as it has before it, thus denoting that the sub- 
jects are identical, or that the one term is the predicate 
of the other, as, " It is he," " You believed it to be 
him." In the former example, it is the nominative to 
the verb, the nominative case he therefore follows the 



194 SYNTAX. 

verb. In the latter, it is the regimen of the verb be- 
lieved, the verb to be is therefore followed by the ob- 
jective case. 

Note 1. — This rule is violated in such examples as "it 
is me" " it was him" " I believed it to be he" " whom, do 
men say that I am ? " In the last example, the natural ar- 
rangement is, " men say that I am whom," where, contrary 
to the rule, the nominative / precedes, and the objective case 
whom follows the verb. 

Note 2. — Priestley has asked, " Who would not say, ' If 
it be me,' rather than ' If it be I ? ' " Our ears are certainly 
more familiar with the former than with the latter phraseo- 
logy, and those who consult the ear only, may prefer it : but, 
where no advantage is gained by a departure from analogy, 
every deviation is at once idle and reprehensible. 

Note 3. — The verb to be is called by logicians the copula, 
as connecting the subject with the predicate. Thus, when 
we say, " he is wise," " they are learned," he and they are the 
subjects; wise and learned the predicates. Now, it particu- 
larly deserves the attention of the classical scholar, that in 
English almost any verb may be used as a copula. This cir- 
cumstance is the more worthy of his notice, as a conformity 
to the Latin idiom may lead him to reject expressions, which 
are unexceptionable, and to adopt others not strictly correct a . 
Thus we say, "it tastes good," "he strikes hard," "I re- 
member right," " he feels sick;" " we came late," "they rise 
early," " he drinks deep." I am aware that the words late, 
early, are in such examples considered as adverbs. It ap- 
pears to me they are adjectives, — that the idiom is truly Eng- 
lish, and that all these expressions are perfectly analogous. 

Rule XV. — When two verbs come together, the 
attribute signified by the one verb being the 'subject 
or object of the action, energy, or affection expressed 
by the other, the former is governed in the infinitive 

a Home Tooke observes, that Lowth has rejected much good English : 
and it is to be apprehended, that the classical scholar is too prone to 
condemn in his own language whatever accords not with the Latin 
idiom. 



SYNTAX. 195 

mood, as, " he taught me to read," " I knew him 
to be." 

Note 1. — The infinitive thus frequently supplies the place of 
an objective case after the verb, as it often stands for a nomi- 
native before it, as, "he loves to study," or "he loves study." 

Note 2. — In such examples as, " I read to learn," where 
the latter phrase, though in the same form as to study, in the 
preceding example, has, notwithstanding, a different meaning, 
and cannot be resolved like it into " I read learning," in such 
examples, as Tooke justly observes, the preposition for de- 
noting the object, and equivalent to pour in French, is un- 
derstood, as, " I read for to learn." Our southern neighbours 
indeed, in these examples, never omit the casual term ; and 
Truster has not improperly observed, that, when the verb 
does not express the certain and immediate effect, but some- 
thing remote and contingent, the words in order to, which are 
nearly equivalent to for, may be pertinently introduced as, "in 
order to acquire fame, men encounter the greatest dangers." 

Note 3. — The verbs to bid, dare, need, make, see, hear, feel, 
let, are not followed by the sign of the infinitive, as, " He bade 
me go," " I saw him do it." It is to be observed, however, 
that in the language of Scripture the verb " to make" is often 
followed by to, as, " He maketh his sun to rise." The verb 
" to dare," for " to challenge," or " to defy," is also con- 
strued with to, " I dare thee but to breathe upon my love." 
— Shakspeare. 

Note 4. — Nouns, adjectives, and participles, are often fol- 
lowed by an infinitive, as, " your desire to improve will 
ultimately contribute to your happiness." " Good men are 
desirous to do good." 

Note 5. — As the proper tense of the subsequent or se- 
condary verb has, in certain cases, been a subject of dis- 
pute, it may be necessary to observe, that, when the simple 
attribute, or merely the primary idea expressed by the subse- 
quent verb, is intended to be signified, it should then be put 
in the present tense : but when the idea of perfection or com- 
pletion is combined with the primary idea, the subsequent 
verb should have that form, which is termed the perfect of 

o 2 



196 SYNTAX. 

the infinitive. Or, perhaps, this rule may, more intelligibly 
to the scholar, though less correctly, be thus expressed, that 
when the action or state, denoted by the subsequent verb, is 
contemporary with that of the primary verb, then the se- 
condary verb must be put in the present tense ; but when the 
action or state is prior to that expressed by the secondary 
verb, the latter must be put in the preterite tense. Usage, 
indeed, and the opinions of grammarians, are divided on this 
subject. But when nothing but usage can be pleaded in 
favour of one phraseology, and when reason concurs with 
usage to recommend another, it will not be questioned that 
the latter deserves the preference. Thus, we should say, " I 
expected to see you," and not "I expected to have seen you;" 
because either the expectation and the seeing must be re- 
garded as contemporary, or the former must be considered as 
prior to the latter. But why, it may be asked, must the see- 
ing be considered as contemporary with the expectation ? 
Might not the former have been anterior to the latter ? This 
is certainly possible ; I may see a friend before 1 expect him. 
But though the sight, abstractedly considered, may precede 
the expectation, it cannot possibly, as an object of expecta- 
tion, be prior to it. The idea involves absurdity, equal and 
analogous to the assertion, that the paper, on which I write, 
existed as an object of my perception, previously to my per- 
ceiving it. Agreeably to the second form of the rule here 
given, we find that the Latins very generally used the present 
of the infinitive, to express an action or state contemporary 
with the attribute of the primary verb. Thus, dixit me scribere, 
" he said that I wrote," or "was writing," that is, at the time of 
his saying so : dixit me scripsisse, "he said that I had written." 
I have observed, that, when the simple attribute denoted 
by the subsequent verb is implied, we should use the present 
of the infinitive. This phraseology should not only be used 
in all cases, where contemporary actions or states are to be 
signified, but may also be sometimes employed, where the se- 
condary verb denotes something posterior to what is implied 
by the first. For though in no instance, where the simple 
action or state is to be expressed, should we use the sign of 
past or future time, yet for obvious reasons we may, and often 



SYNTAX. 197 

do, employ the present infinitive, or simple name, to denote 
what is future, when the primary verb necessarily implies the 
futurity of its object. Thus, instead of saying, "he promised 
that he would pay," where the constructive sign of futurity 
is used to denote the posteriority of the payment, we often 
say, " he promised to pay," employing the present tense, sy- 
nonymous with the simple name, as, "he promised payment." 
The Latins also, though they almost universally, unless in 
colloquial language, preferred the former mode of expression, 
sometimes adopted the latter, as, denegavit se dare. — Plant. 
Jusjurandum pollicitns est dare. — Id. " He refused to give," 
"he promised to give," or " he promised giving," the se- 
condary verb expressing the act simply, and the time being 
necessarily implied. 

Note 6. — The infinitive mood is sometimes used in an ab- 
solute or independent sense, as, " to speak the truth, we are 
all liable to error." " Not to trespass on your time, 1 will 
briefly explain the whole affair," that is, " that I may speak," 
" that I may not trespass." 

Rule XVI. — The imperative, agreeably to the 
general rule, agrees with its nominative, as, 

" Love thou ;" " listen ye," or " you." 

Note 1. — The imperative is frequently used, without its 
subject, that is, the nominative being suppressed, but the 
person or persons being perfectly understood. " And 
Samuel said to the people, Fear not," i. e. " Fear ye not." 

Note 2. — It is employed in the same way, in an absolute 
sense, without its subject. " Our ideas are movements of the 
nerves of sense, as of the optic nerve, in recollecting visible 
ideas, suppose of a triangular piece of ivory." — Darwin. I 
agree with Webster in thinking, that there is " a peculiar 
felicity" in such absolute forms of expression, the verb being 
thus applicable to any of the three persons, thus, " I may 
suppose," " you may suppose," " one may suppose." 

Rule XVII. — Participles are construed as the verbs 
to which they belong, as, 

" Teaching us to deny ungodliness." 



198 SYNTAX. 

Note 1. — The imperfect participle is frequently used like 
a substantive, and is, in such examples, of the same import 
with the infinitive of the verb ; as, " they love reading," i. e. 
" they love to read." In some examples it becomes a real 
noun, and has a plural number, as, the outgoings of the 
morning. 

Note 2. — Lowth contends that, when the imperfect parti- 
ciple of a transitive verb is not preceded by the definite ar- 
ticle, it properly governs the objective case, and is analogous 
to the Latin gerund, as, " much advantage will be derived 
from observing this rule ;" in which example, this rule is the 
regimen of the participle observing ; and that, when the de- 
finite article precedes the participle, it becomes then a pure 
noun, and, therefore, cannot have the regimen of a verb. He 
therefore condemns this expression, " by the sending them 
the light of thy holy Spirit." Some of our grammarians 
consider Lowth, in this instance, as fastidiously critical; 
but to me he appears chargeable with error. Let us exa- 
mine the reasons, which the author adduces in support of his 
opinion. 

In this inquiry, the first and most pertinent question is, 
does usage justify the opinion of the author ? He acknow- 
ledges the contrary: he even admits that there is not a single 
writer who does not violate this rule. Were it necessary, 
indeed, after this concession, it would be easy to evince, that 
not only our translators of the Bible, whose authority surely 
is of great weight, but also other writers of the highest emi- 
nence, employ the phraseology which he condemns. 

Again. Does the distinction, which he wishes to esta- 
blish, favour perspicuity ? The very reverse appears to me to 
be the case ; for he admits an identity of sense in two distinct 
phraseologies, which are incontestably, in many instances, 
susceptible of different meanings. And, though this ambi- 
guity may not be involved in every example, we have surely 
good reasons for repudiating a phraseology which may, in 
any instance, be liable to misconstruction. We are to pre- 
scribe, not what may be perspicuous in some instances, but 
what must be intelligible in all. 

Lowth says, that we may express the sentiment, either by 



SYNTAX. 199 

inserting the article before the participle and the preposition 
after it, or by the omission of both ; in other words, that these 
phraseologies are equivalent. Thus, according to him, we may 
say either, " by sending his Son into the world," or " by the 
sending of his Son." Here, perhaps, the meaning is suffi- 
ciently clear, whichsoever of these forms of expression be 
adopted. But let us take another example, as, "he expressed 
the pleasure he had, in hearing the philosopher." Now, ac- 
cording to Lowth, we may also say, " he expressed the plea- 
sure he had, in the hearing of the philosopher." Is there no 
difference of sentiment here ? Are these expressions equiva- 
lent ? The contrary must be obvious to the most inattentive 
reader. According to the former phraseology, the philoso- 
pher was heard — he is represented as passive ; agreeably to 
the latter, he was active — he heard. 

Again. " When the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, be- 
cause of the provoking of his sons and daughters." Our 
translators have correctly exhibited the sentiment. The sons 
and daughters had given offence ; they had provoked the Deity. 
But, if Lowth's opinion be correct, the expression might be 
"because of provoking his sons and daughters;" a phrase 
which evidently conveys a very different idea. 

Again. When it is said, " at the hearing of the ear, they 
will believe," is this expression convertible, without violating 
the sense, into, " at hearing the ear they will believe ? " 
Many more examples might be produced to prove that these 
phraseologies, which Lowth considers of the same import, are 
by no means equivalent. It appears, then, that perspicuity 
is not consulted by adopting this rule. 

Again. He considers the participle, with a preposition 
before it, as correspondent to the Latin gerund, and there- 
fore governing an objective case; but the participle preceded 
by an article, he considers as a substantive, and therefore 
incapable of any regimen. Now, as the author reasons from 
one language to another, we may pertinently ask, is not the 
Latin gerund a noun, a verbal substantive, not only having 
the form, and the inflexions of a noun, but governed like it, 
by nouns, adjectives, verbs, and prepositions, itself likewise 
governing the case of its verb ? This position, were this the 



200 SYNTAX. 

place for it, we could easily prove, notwithstanding the objec- 
tions which Scioppius, Vossius, with some other grammarians, 
have alleged against it. Nay, whatever theory be adopted 
respecting the nature of the gerund, there cannot exist a 
doubt, that, in the early ages of Roman literature, the verbal 
nouns in io governed an accusative, like the verbs whence 
they were derived. Quid tibi curatio est lianc rem, is one 
example from Plautus out of many, which might be pro- 
duced \ That the supines also were, in truth, substantives 
admitting a regimen, is equally clear: Difficile dictu was 
originally difficile in dictu ; and misit oratum opem, misit 
ad oratum opem. Nor can the structure of the future infini- 
tive passive be so satisfactorily resolved, notwithstanding a 
few repugnant examples, as on this supposition: Dixit libros 
tectum iri is resolved into dixit [id) iri ad tectum libros, 
where libros is the regimen of the verbal noun ledum. 

Thus it is evident, that the Latin gerunds, supines, and 
verbal nouns in io, though in form and inflexion substan- 
tives, governed an accusative case. It matters not, indeed, 
to the point in question, what was the practice of the an- 
cients in this respect ; nor should I, therefore, have dwelt so 
long on this subject, did I not conceive, that the very autho- 
rity to which Dr. Lowth seems to appeal, militates against 
him ; and that the very language, to which in this, as in most 
other cases, he strives to assimilate ours, had nouns govern- 
ing cases, like the verbs from which they came. 

From the preceding observations, I think it must appear, 
that the rule given by Dr. Lowth, is neither sanctioned by 
general usage, nor friendly to perspicuity; while the vio- 
lation of it is perfectly reconcilable with the practice of the 
Roman writers, if their authority can, in this question, be 
deemed of any value. 

Having attempted to prove the invalidity of Lowth's argu- 
ment, and the impropriety of his rule, as establishing an iden- 
tity of meaning, where a difference must exist, I would sub- 
mit to the candid and judicious critic the following remarks. 

The participle in ing has either an active or passive signi- 

* See Johnson's Comm. p. 351, and Seyer on the Latin Verb, p. 174. 
To the arguments there offered, many others might be added. 



SYNTAX. 201 

fication; its import must, therefore, be determined by the 
judgment of the reader, or by explanatory adjections. What- 
ever, then, is calculated to remove all misconstruction, and 
to render its import clear and unequivocal, merits attention. 
Consistently, then, with some of the examples already ad- 
duced, I am inclined to suggest, that, when the noun, con- 
nected with the participle, is active or doing something, the 
preposition should be inserted, as, " in the hearing of the 
philosopher," that is, the philosopher hearing; and that, 
when the noun represents the subject of an action, or what is 
suffering, the preposition should be omitted, as, " in hearing 
the philosopher," or the philosopher being heard. An atten- 
tion to this rule will, I conceive, in most cases prevent 
ambiguity. 

If it should be said that I have admitted Lowth's phrase- 
ologies, I answer, it is true ; but with this difference, that 
he considers them as equivalent, and I as diametrically 
opposite. I observe, likewise, that, though I prefer the sup- 
pression of the article when the participle is not followed by 
of, and its insertion when it is followed by the preposition, 
it is not because I perceive any impropriety in the other 
phraseology, but because, since the publication of Lowth's 
Grammar, it has been less employed ; and because also it 
less forcibly marks the distinction, which I have recom- 
mended. That it has the sanction of good authority, is un- 
questionable ; and that it is not inconsistent with analogy, 
will still further appear from the following note. 

Note 3. — The participle in ing is construed like a noun, 
governing the genitive case, and, at the same time, having 
the regimen of its proper verb, as, " Much depends on 
Richard's observing the rule, and error will be the conse- 
quence of his neglecting it." In this example, the words 
Richard's and his are in the genitive case, governed by the 
participles observing and neglecting, while these participles, 
having here every character of a noun, admit the objective 
case. This form of expression has been received as unex- 
ceptionable ; the following phraseology, however, has been 
censured, though, in truth, precisely analogous to the one 
now exemplified : " Much depends on the rule's being ob- 



202 SYNTAX. 

served, and error will be the consequence of its being 
neglected." " Here," said a certain writer, " is a noun with 
a pronoun representing it, each in the possessive case, that is, 
under the government of another noun, but without any other 
noun to govern it ; for being observed and being neglected 
are not nouns, nor can you supply the place of the possessive 
case by the preposition of before the noun or pronoun." 

I concur with Dr. Campbell, who has examined this ob- 
jection, in thinking, that the expression is not only sanc- 
tioned by good usage, but is also agreeable to analogy, and 
preventive of circumlocution. The objector, indeed, does 
not seem to have been aware, that his opinion is at variance 
with itself; and that the reason, which he assigns for reject- 
ing this phraseology, would, with equal force, conclude 
against another mode of expression, which he himself ap- 
proves. For he would have no objection to say, " Much 
depends on his observing the rule, and error will be the con- 
sequence of his neglecting it." Now let us try whether this 
sentence be not liable to the same objection as the other. 
In the former, he says, you cannot possibly supply the place 
of the possessive case, by the preposition of before the noun 
or pronoun. This is true ; for it would not be English to 
say, " Much depends on the being observed of the rule; and 
error will be the consequence of the being neglected of it." 
But will his own approved phraseology admit this ? Let us 
see ; " Much depends on the observing of him of the rule, 
and error will be the consequence of the neglecting of him 
of it." Were the example simpler, the argument would be 
equally strong; as, "Much depends on your pupil's com- 
posing, but more on his reading frequently." This sentence, 
the author alluded to, would have approved. Let us try if it 
can be resolved by of: " Much depends on the composing 
of your pupil, but more on the reading of him frequently." 

The author's argument, then, if it prove anything, proves 
too much ; it cannot, therefore, have any weight. 

In addition to these observations, I would remark, that the 
writer's argument involves another inconsistency. He admits 
that the participle in ing may be thus construed ; for he ap- 
proves the phrases, " his observing the rule," and " his neg- 



SYNTAX. 203 

lecting it." Why then does he reject " his being " and " its 
being ? " for the past or perfect participles observed and neg- 
lected have no share in the government, rule's and it's being 
under the regimen of the participle in ing. In fact, then, the 
phrase seems no more objectionable than " his being a great 
man did not make him a happy man;" which our author 
would admit to be wholly unexceptionable. 

Some late writers, reasoning doubtless on a principle 
similar to that, the absurdity of which we have been attempt- 
ing to expose, have discarded a phraseology which appears 
unobjectionable, and substituted one which seems less cor- 
rect. Many writers, instead of saying, " his being smitten 
with the love of Orestilla was the cause of his murdering his 
son," would say, " he being smitten with the love of Orestilla 
was the cause." This seems to me an idle affectation of the 
Latin idiom, less precise than the common mode of ex- 
pression, and less consonant with the genius of our language. 
For, ask what was the cause ; and, according to this phraseo- 
logy, the answer must be he ; whereas the meaning is, that 
not he, but his being smitten, was the cause of his murder. 

"This jealousy accounts for Hall charging the Duke of 
Gloucester with the murder of Prince Edward." " This," 
says Mr. Baker, very justly, " is, in my opinion, a very un- 
couth way of speaking, though much used by ignorant 
people, and often affected by those who are not ignorant." 
The writer should have said, " for Hall's charging." " His 
words being applicable to the common mistake of our age 
induce me to transcribe them." Here I agree with the same 
writer in thinking, that it would be better to consider words 
as in the genitive case plural, governed by the participle, as 
Hall's in the preceding example, and join his words' being 
applicable, equivalent to the applicability of his words, with 
the verb singular ; thus, " his words' being applicable to the 
common mistake of our age, induces me to transcribe them." 
A ridiculous partiality in favour of the Latin idiom, which in 
this case is not so correct as our own, not exhibiting the 
sentiment with equal precision, has given birth to this 
phraseology, which in many cases conveys not the intended 
idea. For, as Priestley remarks, if it is said, " What think 



204 SYNTAX. 

you of my horse's running to-day ?" it is implied, that the 
horse did actually run. If it is said, " What think you 
of my horse running to-day ?" it is intended to ask, whether 
it be proper for my horse to run to-day. This distinction, 
though frequently neglected, deserves attention ; for it is 
obvious, that ambiguity may arise from using the latter only 
of these phraseologies, to express both meanings. 

Note 4. — This participle is sometimes used absolutely, in 
the same manner as the infinitive mood, as, " this conduct, 
viewing it in the most favourable light, reflects discredit on 
his character." Here the participle is made absolute, and is 
equivalent to the infinitive in that state, as, " to view it in 
the most favourable light." Both these modes of expression 
are resolvable, either by the hypothetical, or the perfective 
conjunctions; thus, " if we view it in the most favourable 
light." " To confess the truth, I have no merit in the case ;" 
i. e. " that I may confess." 

Rule XVIII. — A noun or pronoun joined to a 
participle, its case being dependent on no word in 
the sentence, is put in the nominative. 

Note 1. — This rule will be perfectly understood by the 
classical scholar, when we say, that the absolute case in 
English is the nominative. Thus, " We being exceedingly 
tossed the next day, they lightened the ship." The pronoun 
of the first person, joined to the participle, being, is neither 
the nominative to any verb, nor is it connected with any 
word, of which it can be the regimen. It is therefore put in 
the nominative case. 

Note 2. — This rule is violated in such examples as the 
following, " Solomon made as wise proverbs as anybody has 
done, him only excepted, who was a much wiser man than 
Solomon." — Tillotson. 

" For only in destroying I find ease 
To my relentless thoughts ; and, him destroy'd, 
Or won to what may work his utter loss, 
For whom all this was made, all this will soon 
Follow," — Milton. 

This seems to be the only example in which the poet hat 

* 



SYNTAX. 205 

transgressed this rule ; and in several instances, in which he 
has observed it, Bentley would erroneously substitute the 
objective case. 

Rule XIX. — Prepositions are joined with the ob- 
jective case, or govern nouns and pronouns in the ac- 
cusative, as, " he ran to me," " he was loved by us." 

Note 1. — This rule is violated in such expressions as these, 
" Who servest thou under ? " " Who do you speak to ? " for 
the syntactical arrangement is, " thou servest under who ? " 
" thou speakest to who ? " instead of " under whom ? " " to 
whom ? " 

Note 2. — The preposition is frequently separated from its 
regimen, as, " Horace is an author, whom I am much de- 
lighted with," i. e. "with whom I am much delighted." 

Note 3. — The prepositions to and for are often understood, 
as, " he gave me a book," " he told me the news : " i. e. " he 
gave to me," " he told to me." 

Lowth has, indeed, observed, that in such examples, the 
pronouns, me, thee, &c, may be considered to be in the dative 
case, as, in truth, they are in Saxon the datives of their 
respective pronouns, and in their form include to, as, " woe 
is to me." This phrase, he observes, is pure Saxon, the 
same as, " wae is me," in which me is a dative case. 

TJie preposition by is also, in a few colloquial expressions, 
omitted, as, " he went across the bridge," " he crossed the 
bridge," for " he crossed (the river) by the bridge." 

Note 4. — A preposition, following a verb, constituting with 
it what has been termed a compound active verb, is some- 
times suppressed. We say, " he hoped for a reward," " you 
wondered at his courage." Addison, Steele, and Johnson, 
with several other reputable writers, say, " It is to be hoped," 
instead of "to be hoped for;" and Johnson very generally 
says, "It is not to be wondered," for "not to be wondered at," 
The latter form of expression seems to have been adopted, 
in order to avoid the abrupt and inelegant conclusion of the 
clause, especially when followed by the word that. 

Note 5. — The prepositions in, on, for, said from, are often 
understood before nouns of time and place ; thus, " this day," 



20() SYNTAX. 

" next month," " last year," are often used elliptically for 
" on this day," " in next month," " in last year." We say, 
also, " He was banished England," i. e. "from England." 

Care, however, should be taken that the omission create 
no ambiguity. If we say, " He was deaf some years before 
he died," referring to a temporary deafness, and a point of 
time at which it occurred, the expression is not improper, 
though the meaning might be more clearly expressed ; but if 
we intend to signify a continued deafness, we ought to say, 
" for " or " during some years." 

Note 6. — The preposition is improperly omitted in the 
following line of Pope's : 

" And virgins smiled at what they blush'd before." 

It should be, according to the rules of syntax, "smiled at what 
they blushed at before," both verbs requiring at after them, 
thus, " they smiled at that, at which they blushed before." 

Note 7. — Prepositions should be placed as near as possible 
to each of the words, whose relation they express. The fol- 
lowing sentence from Hume is, in this respect, faulty : " The 
ignorance of the age in mechanical arts, rendered the pro- 
gress very slow of this new invention." It should be, " the 
progress of this new invention." The following sentence 
from Johnson, is, for the same reason, chargeable with faulty 
arrangement: " The country first dawned, that illuminated the 
world, and beyond which the arts cannot be traced of civil 
society or domestic life." — Rasselas. It should be, " the arts 
of civil society or domestic life cannot be traced." Priestley 
has censured the following clause from Harris, " being in no 
sense capable of either intention or remission." If it be con- 
sidered, however, that the word either properly means " the 
one or the other," and in truth denotes the subject, being, 
therefore, in strict propriety, the regimen of the preposition, 
the arrangement of Harris, though now not so common as the 
other, will not appear exceptionable. Nay, whatever may be 
the future decision of usage, that great arbitress of all lan- 
guage, (for at present she is divided,) Harris's arrangement 
seems more conformable to the strict meaning of the words, 
as well as to Priestley's own rule, than that, which the latter 



SYNTAX. '207 

recommends ; thus, "capable of either (i.e. of the one or of 
the other), intension, or remission." 

Rule XX. — Adverbs have no government. 

Note 1. — They are sometimes improperly used for adjec- 
tives, as, " After those wars of which they hoped for a soon 
and prosperous issue." — Sidney. " A soon issue " is not 
English ; an adverb cannot agree with a substantive ; it should 
be " a speedy and prosperous issue." Such expressions like- 
wise as the following, though not destitute of authority, are 
exceedingly inelegant, and irreconcilable with analogy: " the 
then ministry," for " the ministry of that time ; " " the above 
discourse," for " the preceding discourse." 

Note 2. — They are sometimes used like substantives, as, 
" a little while," for " in a little time," or " for a little time." 
" Worth while," " some how," " any how," " any where,'' 
are examples of the same kind. 

Note 3. — The adverbs whence, thence, hence, are equiva- 
lent to, " from which place," " from that place," " from this 
place ;" from whence, from thence, from hence, are therefore 
chargeable with redundancy. 

Note 4. — Never is sometimes erroneously used for ever, as, 
" they might be extirpated, were they never so many." It 
should be, \"^ever so many," i.e. " how many soever." " Who 
will not hearken to the voice of the charmer, charm he never 
so sweetly." It should be, " ever so sweetly;" i.e. "how- 
ever sweetly," or " how sweetly soever." 

Note 5. — Ever is likewise sometimes improperly used for 
never, as, " I seldom or ever see him now." It should be, 
" seldom or never" the speaker intending to say, " that rarely, 
or rather at no time, does he see him now;" not "rarely," or 
" at any time." 

Note 6. — Priestley remarks, that the French always place 
their adverbs immediately after their verbs, which order, he 
observes, by no means suits the English idiom. " His govern- 
ment gave courage to the English barons to carry farthe" 
their opposition." — Hume. It would be better, " to carry 
their opposition farther." " Edward obtained a dispensation 
from his oath, which the barons had compelled Gaveston to 



208 SYNTAX. 

take, that he would abjure for ever the realm;" better " the 
realm for ever." 

Note 7. — The adverb is generally placed between the auxi- 
liary verb and the participle, as, " this is perfectly under- 
stood." When there are more auxiliaries than one, the same 
author observes, that the adverb shouM be placed after the 
first. This rule, however, is by no means universally fol- 
lowed ; for many of our best writers employ a different ar- 
rangement, and, I think, with great propriety ; as, " this will 
be perfectly understood," where the adverb follows both auxi- 
liaries. The place of the adverb may, in general, be ascer- 
tained, by considering what word it is intended to qualify : 
and, in the last example, it should be closely connected with 
understood. But more on this subject in the following note. 

Note 8. — The adverb, as its name imports, is generally 
placed close to the word, which it modifies or affects : its force, 
therefore, very much depends upon its position. Inattention 
to the proper collocation of adverbs is frequently the cause 
of much obscurity and misconception. To this inattention 
we may ascribe the ambiguity in the following sentence: " He 
was not honoured with this reward, but with the approbation 
of the people." This sentence may imply, either that he was 
honoured with this reward, not without the approbation of 
the people ; or that he was not honoured with this reward, 
but was honoured with the approbation of the people. The 
latter is the meaning intended. It should therefore be, " he 
was honoured, not with this reward, but with the approba- 
tion of the people." By this arrangement the sentiment is 
correctly exhibited — the two subjects, reward and approba- 
tion, are perspicuously contrasted, and while the former is 
negatived, the latter is affirmed a . 

a The propriety of this collocation of the negative will be more evident, 
if we attend to the two very different meanings of the word but. Accord- 
ing to the former construction of the sentence, but is the imperative of 
beutan, "to be out," and is synonymous with unless or except; thus, 
"but with the approbation," or except with the approbation. According 
to the latter construction, it is properly bot, the imperative of botan, " to 
add." Thus, " he was honoured not with (». e. exclude or except) this 
reward, but (add) with the approbation of the people." 



SYNTAX. 209 

Note 9. — Lowth observes that " the adverb should be for 
the most part placed before adjectives, and after verbs ;" 
thus, " he was excessively modest," " he fought bravely." 
This is, indeed, the general arrangement; but it admits many 
exceptions. In no case are writers so apt to err as in the 
position of the word only. Its place, in my opinion, is after 
the substantive to which it refers, or which it exclusively im- 
plies, and before the attributive. In the following sentence 
of Steele's, the collocation is faulty : " The bridegrooms its 
with an aspect which intimates his thoughts were not only 
entertained with the joys with which he was surrounded, but 
also with a noble gratitude, and divine pleasure." This col- 
location of the two adverbs implies that his thoughts were 
something more than entertained: whereas it is the author's 
intention to say, that his thoughts were entertained with 
something more than joys. The sentence, therefore, should 
proceed thus : " The bridegroom sits with an aspect, which 
intimates, that his thoughts were entertained not with the 
joys only, with which he was surrounded, but also with a 
noble gratitude and divine pleasure." a 

When Addison says (Spec. No. 412), " By greatness I do 
not only mean the bulk of any single object, but the large- 
ness of a whole view," the question naturally occurs, what 
does he more than mean ? It is evident that, agreeably to 
this arrangement, the adverb refers to mean, exclusively of all 
other attributes or actions, and being prefaced by a negative, 
implies " that he does something more than mean." In this 
criticism I concur with Blair, who has expressed his disap- 
probation of this arrangement. 

Had he, as the same author observes, placed the adverb 
after bulk, it would have still been wrong. For if he had 
said, " I do not mean the bulk only," then the adverb, follow- 

a It is to be observed that a different collocation is sometimes admis- 
sible without any risk of ambiguity, especially when the clause is negative. 
Thus we may say, " His thoughts were entertained with not only," i. e. 
" with not one thing," viz. " the joys" with which he was surrounded ; 
or, " not only with the joys ; but (bot or add) a noble gratitude and divine 
pleasure." 

Usage in common conversation, and in familiar language, inclines to 
this arrangement, and many of our best writers frequently adopt it. 

P 



210 SYNTAX. 

ing a noun substantive, must refer to it exclusively of every 
other, and the clause being negative, the question would be, 
what does he mean more than the bulk ? Is it the colour, 
the beauty, or what else ? 

Now, as Mr. Addison intended to say that he did not mean 
one thing, the word only should have followed the name of that 
thing, whether its designation was simple or complex. He 
should, therefore, have said, " the bulk of any single object 
only, but the largeness of a whole view." According to this 
arrangement, the word only refers, as it ought, to " the bulk 
of any single object" as one idea; and the question occurs, 
what does he mean more than the bulk of any single object ? 
to which the answer follows, " the largeness of a whole view." 
It may, however, at the same time be observed that, con- 
sistently with the practice of some of our best writers, who 
place the adverb before its subject, there seems no impro- 
priety here in saying, u I do not mean only," i. e. " one thing," 
" the bulk of a single object, but the largeness of a whole 
view." 

" The perfidious voice of flattery reminded him," says Gib- 
bon, " that by exploits of the same nature, by the defeat of 
the Nemean lion, and the slaughter of the wild boar of En - 
manthus, the Grecian Hercules had acquired a place among 
the gods, and an immortal memory among men." " They 
only forgot to observe that, in the first ages of society, a suc- 
cessful war against savage animals is one of the most benefi- 
cial labours of heroism." In the beginning of the latter sen- 
tence the adverb only is misplaced. As it stands, the mean- 
ing is that they were the only persons who forgot: it should 
be " only they forgot to observe ;" i. e. " one thing they for- 
got," namely, " to observe." To this erroneous collocation 
in Gibbon, I shall oppose a similar example from Pope, in 
which the adverb is correctly placed. In a letter to Hughes, 
speaking of the compliments which this gentleman had paid 
to him on his translation of Homer, he acquaints him, that 
he should be ashamed to attempt returning these compli- 
ments ; one thing, however, he would observe, namely, that 
he esteemed Mr. Hughes too much not to be pleased with the 
compliments which he had received from him. His words, 






SYNTAX. 211 

therefore, are, " I should be ashamed to offer at saying any 
of those civil things, in return to your obliging compliments, 
in regard to my translation of Homer: only I have too great 
a value for you not to be pleased with them;" where the word 
only introduces the clause, and is equivalent to "one thing 
is true," or "thus much (tantum), I say, I have too great a 
value," &c. Here it is obvious that the adverb, as it pre- 
cedes the pronoun, does not refer to it; and that Mr. Pope's 
collocation of it is perfectly correct, to express the sentiment, 
which he intended. Had he said, " I only," the adverb 
would have referred to the pronoun, and implied that he 
was the only person who valued. Had he intended to say, 
that he merely entertained an esteem for him, but could not 
manifest it, then the presence of the auxiliary would have 
been necessary, and he would have expressed himself thus, 
" I do only entertain too great an esteem for you;" that is, 
" I do only (one thing) entertain too great an esteem." Had 
he said, " I have only too great a value for you," it would 
be properly opposed to, " and not too little,." Had he said, 
" I have too great a value only," then value would be con- 
trasted with some other sentiment, as when one says, he " has 
wealth only, but not virtue," for example, or any other ac- 
quirement. As a violation of this rule, I adduce also the 
following expression of a reviewer. "We only discharge 
our duty to the public ;" a declaration which, strictly inter- 
preted, means " we are the only persons who discharge." 
It should be, " we do only (one thing) discharge our duty ; " 
for the writer intended to say, that he did nothing but dis- 
charge his duty to the public a . In justification of such in- 
accuracies, it is impertinent to plead, that a little attention will 
prevent misconception. It is the business of every author to 
guard his reader, as far as the language in which he writes 
will permit, from the possibility of misconstruction, and to 
render that attention to the language unnecessary. Quinti- 
lian's maxim cannot be too often repeated to those who, by 

a The omission of the auxiliary in such examples tends much to pro- 
duce ambiguity : for, as the adverb, when placed between the noun and 
the attributive, may qualify either the former or the latter, perspicuity 
requires the insertion of the auxiliary. 

P 2 



21-2 SYNTAX, 

such apologies, attempt to defend any avoidable ambi- 
guity 3 . 

The following sentence is justly censured by Blair, and also 
by Baker, in his " Remarks." " Theism," says Shaftesbury, 
" can only be opposed to polytheism or atheism." He ought 
to have said, observes Baker, " Theism can be opposed only 
to polytheism or atheism." Dr. Blair concurs in opinion with 
the remarker. I am inclined, however, to differ from both ; 
and think, that the sentence should run thus : " Theism can 
be opposed to polytheism only, or atheism;" where the adverb 
only refers to the noun immediately preceding, and is under- 
stood to the other, implying, that these two systems of belief 
are the only creeds to which theism can be opposed. If this 
be not the proper arrangement, it is obvious, that no definite 
rule can be given on the subject. For, if the adverb may be 
placed either before or after the substantive, to which it re- 
fers, then precision becomes impossible, and we may say, "he 
only" or " only he" to express the same sentiment ; which 
collocations, I haje already shown, denote ideas materially 
different. But, if there be a definite and precise rule for the 
position of this word, and if the sense be different, accord- 
ing to the collocation of the adverb, then I think it will 
appear, that it ought to be subjoined to the substantive or 
pronoun to which it refers; and this opinion is supported 
by the authority of Blair himself, in the examples which I 
have just now adduced. For why, unless on this principle, 
does he contend that the word only should be placed after the 
bulk of a single object ? If the adverb then be, in this ex- 
ample, rightly placed after the substantive or complex name, 
to which it refers, it ought to have the same position assigned 
to it in every similar instance. That the adverb, in the last 
example, refers to " polytheism," there can be no question ; 
it should therefore follow, and not precede, it. 

I am well aware, that many examples may be produced, 
wherein, with an arrangement different from that here re- 
commended, the sense would, notwithstanding, be perfectly 
clear ; and, perhaps, Blair's collocation, in the last example, 

a Non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit non intelligere, cu- 
randum. 

> 



SYNTAX. *213 

may be adduced as an instance. But when a rule, conducive 
to perspicuity, is once established, every unnecessary devia- 
tion from it should be studiously avoided, or, at least, not 
wantonly adopted. 

The sentence, as it stands in Shaftesbury, implies that 
theism is capable of nothing, but of being opposed to poly- 
theism, or atheism: " Theism can only (one thing, namely) 
be opposed to polytheism or atheism;" where it is evident 
that only refers to he opposed, agreeably to the rule now 
given. In the same manner, if I say, " he was only great," 
it is implied, that he was nothing but great, the adverb being 
placed before the attributive, to which it refers. Hence the 
question naturally is, what was he not besides ? The answer 
may be, " not good," " not wise," " not learned." Were the 
adverb placed after the pronoun, it would imply, that " he 
was the only person who was great." a 

I am perfectly aware, that the rule here given will not, in 
all cases, preclude ambiguity; but whenever it becomes 
doubtful, whether the adverb is intended to affect the pre- 
ceding substantive, or the following attributive, a different 
form of expression may be adopted, and the use of the 

a In this and similar examples, the word only has been generally 
considered as an adjective, equivalent to solus. Thus, if we say, Me 
solum erat dives, it means, " he was only rich," or " he was nothing but 
rich." If we say, Me solus erat dives, it means, " he only," or "he alone 
was rich." In the latter example, the word only has been termed an ad- 
jective. It is from the equivalence of the words only and alone, in such 
examples as the latter, that several writers have employed them, as if, in 
all cases, synonymous. They are by no means, however, of the same 
import. Thus, if we say, " virtue alone is true nobility," it means 
" virtue singly, or by itself, is true nobility ;" if we say, " virtue only is 
true nobility," it implies that nothing but virtue is true nobility. The 
expressions, therefore, are not equivalent. Both sentiments are conveyed 
in the following passage : 

.... " Nobilitas sola est atque unica virtus." — Juvenal, Sat. viii. 
The same observations are applicable to the collocation of the numeral 
term first, as equivalent either to primus or primum ; and also to the 
position of many other words, which are used adjectively and adverbi- 
ally. The classical scholar needs not to be informed, that Annibal primus, 
and Annibal primum— Alpes transiit, are not expressions mutually con- 
vertible. 



214 SYNTAX. 

auxiliary, along with the principal verb, will, in many in- 
stances, ensure perspicuity. This expedient, however, cannot 
always be employed. If we say, " The manufacturer only 
was prosperous," it may be uncertain, whether the adverb is 
to restrict the predicate " prosperous " to the manufacturer, 
implying that he was the only prosperous man, or to the verb 
expressing past time, signifying that he was then, but is not 
now prosperous. If the former be the meaning intended, we 
may say, "he was the only prosperous man;" if the latter, 
we may say, "the manufacturer was once," or "was then, the 
only prosperous man." 

It would have contributed much to perspicuity, if authors 
had adopted one uniform practice, placing the adverb con- 
stantly, either before or after its subject, whether a sub- 
stantive or an attributive a . But, where usage is so divided, 

a Addison, Pope, Swift, Steele, and Johnson, very generally place the 
adverb before the attributive, to which it refers, and very often also, 
before the substantive. "What he said, was only to commend my pru- 
dence." — Addison. " He did not pretend to extirpate French music, but 
only to cultivate and civilise it." — Addison. " I was only scribbling." — 
Johnson. ll Not only the thought, but the language is majestic." — 
Addison. " Known only to those, who enjoy." — Johnson. " hay the 
blame only on themselves." — Johnson. " Witty only by the help of 
speech." — Steele. 

Our translators of the Bible have almost uniformly observed the same 
collocation in respect to the predicate ; but have, with few or no devi- 
ations, preferred a different arrangement in regard to the subject, placing 
the adverb after, and not before it. It is in conformity to their practice, 
that we have recommended the rule here given. From the following ex- 
amples, to which many more might be added, it will appear that when 
the adverb referred to a sentence, they made it the introductory word ; 
when it affected an attributive, they placed the adverb before it ; and 
when it referred to a substantive, or the name of a subject, they put the 
adverb after it. " Only take heed to thyself." " Only he shall not go 
in unto the vail." " Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi." 
. . . . " The thoughts of his heart are only evil." " Thou shalt be only 
oppressed." " They might only touch the hem of his garment." .... 
"None followed David, but Judah only." " He only of Jeroboam shall 
come to the grave." " Against thee only have I sinned." " Take nothing 
for your journey, but a staff only." "David did that only which was 
right." " They only shall be delivered." " This only have I found." 
" If in this life only we have hope." 

> 



SYNTAX. 215 

and where the adoption of a new and general rule would 
be now liable to insuperable objections, all that can be suc- 
cessfully attempted is, in accommodation to existing circum- 
stances, to reduce the evil within narrow limits, if we cannot, 
by any precise rule, entirely remove it. With this view we 
would recommend, that when the adverb refers not to a 
word, but to a sentence or clause, it be placed at the be- 
ginning of that sentence or clause ; where it refers to a 
predicate, it precede the predicating term ; and when it has 
a reference to a subject, it follow its name or description. 
An observation, however, already made, may be here re- 
peated, namely, that in the last case, a different collocation 
may often be adopted without the risk of ambiguity, and even 
with advantage to the structure of the sentence. 

Note 10. — Adverbs, as Lowth observes, are generally 
placed before the adjective to which they refer. This rule, 
however, admits a«few exceptions. The adverb enough is 
always placed after its adjective, as, "the reward was small 
enough." The proper position of this adverb, indeed, seems 
to be immediately after the adjective ; it is frequently, how- 
ever, placed at some distance from it, as, " a large house 
enough." Usage is, indeed, somewhat divided on this point, 
Mr. Baker, and a few others, pleading for the following 
arrangement, " a large enough house." The former colloca- 
tion, however, seems far the more general ; and is re- 
commended by that rule, by which the substantive and ad- 
jective should be placed in juxta-position, or as near as 
possible to each other. The latter is defended by the prin- 
ciple, that the qualifying adverb should be placed close to 
the adjective, whose signification it modifies. This colloca- 
tion is generally, however, pronounced a Scotticism ; but it is 
not peculiar to Scotch writers. 

Rule XXI. — Conjunctions have no government. 

Note 1. — In giving this rule, I differ from all other gram- 
marians, who have erroneously, as I conceive, assigned them 
a regimen. Some conjunctions, says Lowth, govern the in- 
dicative, and some the subjunctive mood. This I affirm 
without hesitation to be a great mistake ; for not a single ex- 



216 SYNTAX. 

ample, I venture to assert, can be produced, in which the 
verb is divested of its indicative form, in consequence of its 
being subjoined to any conjunction. The Latins had a form 
of the verb, which they properly enough denominated the 
subjunctive mood ; because, where the meaning was uncon- 
ditionally assertive, they employed this form, if the clause 
was preceded by some particular conjunctive or adverbial 
term. Thus, when they said, adeo benevolus erat, ut omnes 
eum amarent, " he was so benevolent, that all men loved 
him," though the assertion in the latter clause, be evidently 
unconditional, as the English shows, they changed the indica- 
tive into another form, because the verb is preceded by the 
conjunction ut. No similar example can be produced in 
English. 

Lowth informs us, that, when hypothesis, conditionality, 
or contingency is implied, the mood should be subjunctive ; 
if certainty, or something determinate a*nd absolute be sig- 
nified, the verb should be indicative. Now surely, if the 
sense require a form different from the indicative, the verb 
cannot be said to be under the government of the conjunc- 
tion ; for the verb assumes that form, not because preceded 
by the conjunctive term, or because it is under its govern- 
ment, but because the sentiment to be expressed requires that 
phraseology. Whether the conditional, or what Lowth terms 
the subjunctive, be a distinct form of the verb, or only an 
elliptical mode of expression, we have already inquired. See 
p. 126. 

Note 2. — Mr. Harris says, that the chief difference between 
prepositions and conjunctions is, that the former couple 
words, and the latter sentences. This opinion is erroneous ; 
for conjunctions frequently couple words, as in the following 
example : " A man of wisdom and virtue is a perfect cha- 
racter." Here it is not implied, that " a man of wisdom is a 
perfect character ; " but " a man of wisdom combined with 
virtue, or a man of wisdom and virtue." That conjunctions, 
indeed, do not couple at all, in that sense, at least, in which 
grammarians have understood the term, Mr. Tooke seems to 
have incontestably proved. That they sometimes couple 
sentences, or that instances may be produced, in which 



SYNTAX. 2] 7 

Harris's definition will appear correct, the following example 
will serve as an evidence : " You, and I, and John rode to 
town;" i.e. "you rode," "and I rode," " and John rode" 
But to assert, that this is their distinctive property, is to af- 
firm what may be disproved by numberless examples. If we 
say. " two and two are four." Are two four, and two four ? 
" A B, B C, and C A, form a triangle." Is A B a triangle ? 
or B C ? or C A ? "John and Mary are a handsome couple." 
Is John a couple ? and Mary a couple ? The common theory, 
therefore, is false ; nor is it to be doubted, that conjunctions 
are, in respect to signification, and were originally in regard 
to their regimen, verbs, or words compounded of nouns and 
attributives. In explaining them, however, I divided them, 
as the reader may remember, into the several classes of adver- 
sative, concessive, conditional, &c. This I did, not only in 
conformity to general usage, and that he might not be a 
stranger to the names assigned to them ; but likewise for this 
reason, that, though they originally formed no distinct species 
of words, but were either verbs, or compounds of nouns and 
verbs, they have now assumed another character, and are 
construed in a different manner. It is necessary, however, 
that he should be acquainted not only with their present use, 
but also with their primitive import, and classification. 

How these words were degraded from their original rank, 
and deemed insignificant, while some, perhaps, lost their syn- 
tactical power, is a matter, I conceive, of no difficult inquiry. 
For, when the verbs, to which any of these words belonged, 
became obsolete, the words themselves, thus separated from 
their parent stock, and stripped of that consequence and 
authority which they thence derived, their extraction becom- 
ing daily more dubious, and their original value more obscure, 
sunk by degrees into inferior note, and at last dwindled into 
comparative insignificance. Besides, many of them, doubt- 
less, were transplanted into our language without the radices; 
their etymology, therefore, being little known, their primitive 
character, and real import, would soon be involved in in- 
creasing darkness. 

It is to be considered, also, that those who have dispensed 
the laws of grammar in our language, or assumed the office 
of critics, have been generally such as, though perhaps 



218 SYNTAX. 

sufficiently conversant in Greek and Latin, were entirely un- 
acquainted with the Northern languages. Accustomed, 
therefore, to render the conjunctions and prepositions in 
Greek or Latin, by synonymous English words, and unac- 
quainted with the true character of these vernacular terms, 
their etymons being obsolete, or having never been used in 
our language, it is easy to conceive how they would naturally 
assign to the English words the same character and the same 
name which were affixed to the synonymous Latin terms. 
Nay, this has been so much the case, that we have ascribed 
an ambiguous character to several English words, referring 
them now to one class, then to another, merely because they 
agree in signification with certain Greek and Latin terms, 
which have been severally referred by classical grammarians 
to different orders. That the word whether has uniformly, 
in our language, the same import and the same character, 
denoting " which of the two," there can be no doubt ; yet, 
because this word answers sometimes to an, anne, num, and 
sometimes to uter, grammarians and lexicographers have ac- 
counted it both a conjunction and a pronoun. Uirum in 
Latin has shared the same fate. So far, indeed, has this 
spirit been carried, that we will not admit except, according, 
concerning, respecting, with many similar terms, to be verbs 
or participles, because prater, secundum, de, are prepositions. 
It is from this propensity to assimilate ours with the Latin 
language, that all these errors have arisen. 

That the words now termed prepositions and conjunctions 
were originally verbs, or nouns, or compounds of these, 
Tooke has, in my judgment, in con trovertibly proved. This 
being admitted, it appears to me highly probable, that they 
were primitively construed as such, joined either with the no- 
minative or the objective case, as the verbs had either a tran- 
sitive or intransitive meaning ; and that they were followed 
by either single words or clauses. This, however, is merely 
conjecture, founded indeed in the nature of the words, but 
not supported by any evidence. In process of time, in con- 
sequence of that assimilation which naturally takes place be- 
tween a living language and a dead one, much read, much 
written, and much admired, these words, when their origin 
became obscure, would, as I have remarked, be divested of 



SYNTAX. 219 

their primitive character, and be considered as belonging to 
those classes, to which the synonymous Latin words were 
referred. Hence their regimen would likewise undergo a 
change. It would appear awkward and vicious to say now, 
" I saw nobody but he ;" it is not improbable, however, that 
the mode of expression was originally, " I saw nobody, be cut 
he," i. e. " he be out." But I am now indulging in conjecture, 
the very error which chiefly has misled us in our grammatical 
researches. One thing, however, is certain, that several words, 
which were originally employed as prepositions or conjunc- 
tions indifferently, have now acquired a more fixed character, 
and are used but seldom in a double capacity. Of this the 
word without is an example. Thus, it was not unusual to 
say, "without you go, I will not," where the term of exclu- 
sion, though in truth a preposition prefixed to a clause, was 
considered as a conjunction synonymous with nisi. This 
usage, unless in conversation, is now almost entirely relin- 
quished ; and the term without is now generally employed as 
a preposition, being prefixed to single words. It is likewise 
certain that in respect to signification there is no difference 
between conjunctions and prepositions : vidi neminem nisi 
eum, is equivalent to vidi neminem pr&ter eum. In like 
manner, " I saw nobody but him," is synonymous with " I 
saw nobody besides him ;" in which examples the conjunc- 
tions nisi and but are perfectly synonymous with pr&ter and 
besides, which are termed prepositions. 

It may be asked, if then prepositions and conjunctions be 
alike verbs, or nouns, or compounds of these, and if many 
prepositions and conjunctions be in point of meaning identi- 
cal, what forms the ground of distinction between them ? It 
is simply this, that the former are prefixed to single words 
only, as nouns and pronouns, or to clauses involving an in- 
finitive mood a , the infinitive being strictly the name of the 
verb ; and that they have a regimen ; while the latter are 
prefixed to clauses, and have no regimen. This is the only 
distinction between prepositions and conjunctions as dis- 
criminated in modern use. Their original character is suf- 
ficiently established by Mr. Tooke. 

a In colloquial language, but chiefly among the vulgar, prepositions are 
prefixed to verbs indicative. 



220 SYNTAX. 

I have said that some of these words have, in our language, 
an ambiguous character, being employed both as prepositions 
and conjunctions. Of this the word than is an example. 
Priestley seems to consider it as a preposition, and pleads in 
favour of the following expression, "you are taller than him," 
not " taller than he." " Since it is allowed," says the Doctor, 
" that the oblique case should follow prepositions, and since 
the comparative degree of an adjective, and the particle than, 
have certainly between them the force of a preposition, ex- 
pressing the relation of one word to another, they ought to 
require the oblique case of the pronoun following, so that, 
greater than me will be more grammatical than greater than 
/." Here I cannot concur with the learned author. The 
same argument would prove that major quam me, would be 
more grammatical than major quam ego ; a conclusion which 
is opposed by universal authority. The truth is, than must be 
either a conjunction or a preposition, or both. If a conjunc- 
tion, it can have no government, any more than the Latin 
quam ; unless we confound the distinction which has been 
just now explained, and is universally admitted, namely, that 
conjunctions are distinguished from prepositions, by their 
having no government. If it be a preposition, no argument 
is necessary to prove that it may be joined with an objective 
case; for such is the distinguishing character of prepositions. 
If it be either a preposition or a conjunction, it follows, that 
it may be construed either with or without a regimen. Lowth, 
with greater propriety, considers it as a conjunction; and 
Campbell, in his "Rhetoric," recommends this usage as the 
only means of preventing that ambiguity, which necessarily 
arises from the employment of this word as a preposition 
only. For, if we use it as a preposition, we should say, " I 
love you better than him," whether it be meant " I love you 
better than I love him," or " I love you better than he does." 
By using it as a conjunction, the ambiguity is prevented. 
For, if the former sentiment be implied, we say, " I love you 
better than him," i. e. " than I love him ;" if the latter, we 
say, " I love you better than he," i. e. " than he loves you." 
Whatever may have been the original character or syntax of 
this word, since usage is now divided, some writers employing 
it as a conjunction, and others as a preposition, the gramma- 



SYNTAX. 221 

rian may, consistently with his duty, plead for that usage 
only, which prevents ambiguity. 

The rule here recommended is generally violated, when 
than is joined with the relative pronoun, as, " Alfred, than 
whom a greater king never reigned." " Beelzebub, than 
whom, Satan excepted, none higher sat." Salmon has at- 
tempted to account for this almost universal phraseology, by 
saying, that the expression is elliptical, being the same as, 
" than compared with whom." This explanation is forced 
and unnatural. It is likewise unnecessary. The simple fact 
is, that the word than was formerly used as a preposition, 
and, I believe, more frequently than it is now. Hence, 
doubtless, arose this phraseology. 

Rule XXII. — -Derivatives are generally construed 
like their primitives; as, " it was a happy thing for this 
country, that the Pretender was defeated;" or " happily 
for this country the Pretender was defeated." Thus also, 
"to compare with "and "in comparison with riches;" — 
" to depend on," and his " dependence on the court." 

Rule XXIII. — One negative destroys another ; or 
two negatives are equivalent to an affirmative ; as, 
" nor have I no money, which I can spare ;" that is, 
" I have money, which I can spare." — " Nor was the 
king unacquainted with his designs;" that is, "he 
was acquainted." 

Note 1. — Here our language accords with the Latin. In 
Greek and French, two negatives render the negation stronger. 

Note 2. — This rule is violated in such examples as this, 
" Nor is danger ever apprehended in such a government, no 
more than we commonly apprehend danger from thunder or 
earthquakes." It should be any more. 

Rule XXIV. — Interjections-are joined with the ob- 
jective case of the pronoun of the first person, and with 
the nominative of the pronoun of the second, as, " ah 
me," " oh me," " ah thou wretch," " O thou who 
dwellest." 



222 SYNTAX. 

Syntax being that part of grammar, which teaches rules 
not only for the concord and government, but also for the 
order of words in clauses and sentences, I shall subjoin the 
few following brief directions for the guidance of the scholar, 
respecting arrangement. 

1st. The collocation should never invert the natural order 
of events, or violate the principles of reason and metaphy- 
sical propriety. It is obvious, for example, that no person 
can write, who cannot read. The ability to do the former 
necessarily implies a capacity to do the latter. It is prepos- 
terous, therefore, to say with Addison, " There will be few in 
the next generation, who will not at least be able to write and 
read." He should have said, " to read and write." " He was 
the son of a mother, who had nursed him with maternal 
tenderness, and had borne him in an hour of the deepest 
affliction." The natural order of events should have dictated 
the reverse arrangement. There would be a manifest impro- 
priety in saying " Our father is well, and alive;" the former 
state necessarily implying the latter. In the following pas- 
sage, however, it is perhaps excusable, the answers particu- 
larly corresponding to the questions: Joseph says to his 
brothers, "Is your father well ? The old man, of whom ye 
spake, is he yet alive?" They answer, "Thy servant, our 
father, is in good health ; he is yet alive." This error was 
termed by the ancient grammarians hysteron proteron; and, 
though not so palpably as in the preceding examples, it 
occurs much more frequently than an inattentive reader is 
apt to imagine. 

2nd. The English language admits but few inflexions, and 
therefore little or no room for variety of arrangement. The 
connection of one word with another is not to be perceived, 
as in Greek and Latin, by correspondence of termination, 
but by relative position. This renders it indispensably 
necessary, that those words which are intimately related by 
sense one to another, should be closely connected by colloca- 
tion. " The cunning of Hannibal was too powerful for the 
Pergamenians, who by the same kind of stratagem had fre- 
quently obtained great victories at land." The relative here, 
by its position, must be understood as referring to the Perga- 
menians ; whereas it is intended to refer to Hannibal. The 



SYNTAX. 2*23 

relative clause, therefore, should have followed the name of 
the Carthaginian. " His picture, in distemper, of calumny, 
borrowed from the description of one painted by Apelles, 
was supposed to be a satire on that cardinal." — Walpole. 
The error here is obvious. He should have said, " His 
picture of calumny." " It is folly to pretend to arm ourselves 
against the accidents of life, by heaping up treasures, which 
nothing can protect us against, but the good providence of 
our heavenly Father." — Sherlock. Here the grammatical 
antecedent is treasures; but it is intended to be accidents. 
The relative is removed from its proper subject. 

3rd. As the converse of the preceding rule, it may be ob- 
served, that those words should be separated, which in juxta- 
position may, at first sight, or first hearing, possibly convey 
a meaning which the speaker or writer does not intend. " I, 
like a well-bred man, who is never disposed to mortify or to 
offend, praised both sorts of food." As the two introductory 
words are Gapable of two meanings, would it not be better to 
say, " Like a well-bred man ... I praised both sorts of 
food." I am aware, that the other collocation is preferable, 
where a particular stress is to be laid on the principal sub- 
ject ; but ambiguity is an error, which should be studiously 
avoided, and the meaning should not be left to the determi- 
nation of a comma. 

4th. From the preceding rules, it follows as a corollary, 
that no clause should be so placed in a sentence, as to be 
referable either to what precedes, or what follows. " The 
knight, seeing his habitation reduced to so small a compass, 
and himself in a manner shut out of his own house, on the 
death of his mother, ordered all the apartments to be flung 
open." The clause in italics is ambiguously placed. 

5th. When each of two arrangements is equally favourable 
to perspicuity, and equally consistent with metaphysical pro- 
priety, that should be preferred which is the more agreeable 
to the ear. 

(>th. Harsh and abrupt cadences should be avoided ; and 
in elevated style, the clauses should swell towards the close 
of the sentence. This latter rule, however, which requires 
some limitations, belongs to the province of the rhetorician, 
rather than to that of the grammarian. 



PART III 



CHAPTER I. 

CANONS OF CRITICISM. 

Having explained and illustrated the etymology and syntax 
of the English language, as fully as the limits, which I have 
prescribed to myself, will permit, I would now request the 
reader's attention to some additional observations. 

The grammar of every language is merely a compilation of 
those general principles, or rules, agreeably to which that 
language is spoken. When I say, a compilation of rules, I 
would not be understood to mean, that the rules are first 
established, and the language afterwards modelled in con- 
formity to these. The very reverse is the fact: language is 
antecedent to grammar. Words are framed and combined to 
express sentiment, before the grammarian can enter on his 
province. His sole business is, not to dictate forms of 
speech, or to prescribe law to our modes of expression ; but, 
by observing the modes previously established, by remarking 
their similarities and dissimilarities, his province is to deduce 
and explain the general principles, and the particular forms, 
agreeably to which the speakers of that language express 
themselves. The philosopher does not determine by what 
laws the physical and moral world should be governed ; but, 
by the careful observation and accurate comparison of the 
various phenomena presented to his view, he deduces and 
ascertains the general principles, by which the system is 
regulated. The province of the grammarian seems precisely 
similar. He is a mere digester and compiler, explaining 
what are the modes of speech, not dictating what they 
should be. He can neither assign to any word a meaning 
different from that which custom has annexed to it ; nor can 
he alter a phraseology, to which universal suffrage has given 



CANONS OF CRITICISM. 225 

its sanction. Usage is, in this case, law; usage quern penes 
arbitrium est, et jus et norma loquendi. If it were now the 
practice to say, " I loves," instead of " I love," the former 
phraseology would rest on the same firm ground, on which 
the latter now stands ; and " I love," would be as much a 
violation of the rules of grammar, or, which is the same 
thing, of established usage, as "I loves" is at present. 
Regula est, quae rem, quce est, breviter enarrat ; non ut ex 
regula jus sumatur, sed ex jure, quod est, regula fiat. — 
Paul. Leg. I, de Reg. Jur. 

Having said thus much to prevent misconception, and to 
define the proper province of the grammarian, I proceed to 
observe, that this usage, which gives law to language, in 
order to establish its authority, or to entitle its suffrage to 
our assent, must be, in the first place, reputable. 

The vulgar in this, as in every other country, are, from 
their want of education, necessarily illiterate. Their native 
language is known to them no farther, than is requisite for 
the most common purposes of life. Their ideas are few, and 
consequently their stock of words poor and scanty. Nay, 
their poverty, in this respect, is not their only evil. Their 
narrow competence they abuse and pervert. Some words 
they misapply, others they corrupt ; while many are em- 
ployed by them, which have no sanction, but provincial or 
local authority. Hence the language of the vulgar, in one 
province, is sometimes hardly intelligible in another. Add 
to this, that debarred by their occupations from study, or 
generally averse to literary pursuits, they are necessarily 
strangers to the scientific improvements of a cultivated 
mind ; and are therefore entirely unacquainted with that 
diction, which concerns the higher attainments of life. 
Ignorant of any general principles respecting language, to 
which they may appeal ; unable to discriminate between 
right and wrong; prone therefore to adopt whatever usage 
casual circumstances may present ; it is no wonder, if the 
language of the vulgar be a mixture of incongruity and error, 
neither perfectly consistent with itself, nor to themselves 
universally intelligible. Their usage, therefore, is not the 
standard, to which we must appeal for decisive authority; 

Q 



226 CANONS OF CRITICISM. 

a usage so discordant and various, that we may justly apply 
to it the words of a celebrated critic, 

Bellua multorum es capitum ; nam quid sequar, aut quern ? 
The question then is, what is reputable usage ? On this 
subject philologists have been divided. Dr. Campbell ap- 
pears to me to decide judiciously, when he says, that the 
usage, to which we must appeal, is not that of the court, or 
of great men, nor even of authors of profound science, but of 
those, whose works are esteemed by the public, and who 
may, therefore, be denominated reputable authors. By re- 
ferring to their practice, he appeals to a standard less equi- 
vocal, than if he had resorted to the authority of good writers ; 
for, as he justly observes, there may be various opinions 
respecting the merits of authors, when there may be no dis- 
agreement concerning the rank which they hold in the esti- 
mation of the public ; and, because it is the esteem of the 
public, and not their intrinsic merit, (though these go gene- 
rally hand in hand,) that raises them to distinction, and 
stamps a value on their language. Besides, it is to be ob- 
served, that consummate knowledge is not always accom- 
panied with a talent for communicating it : hence the senti- 
ment may be confessedly valuable, while the language is 
regarded as of no authority. 

This usage must be, in the second place, national. It 
must not be confined to this or that province; it must not be 
the usage of this or that district, the peculiarities of which 
are always ridiculous, and frequently unintelligible beyond 
its own limits ; but it must be the general language of the 
country, intelligible everywhere, and in no place ridiculous. 
And, though the variety of dialects may collectively form a 
greater number of authorities than national usage can boast, 
taken singly they are much fewer. Those, to use Campbell's 
apposite similitude, who deviate from the beaten road, may 
be incomparably more numerous than those who travel in it; 
yet, into whatever number of by-paths the former may be 
divided, there may not be found in any one of these tracks so 
many as travel in the king's highway. 

In the third place, this usage must be present. Here it 
may be asked, what is meant by present usage ? Is it the 



CANONS OF CRITICISM. 227 

usage of the present year, the present age, or the present cen- 
tury ? How is it defined, or by what boundary is it limited ? 
In short, how far may we revert in search of decisive autho- 
rity ? may we go back, for example, as far as Chaucer, or 
must we stop at the age of Addison ? 

In determining this matter, the same learned and judicious 
critic observes, that regard must be had to the species of com- 
position and the nature of the subject. Poetry is properly 
allowed a greater latitude than prose ; and therefore, a word, 
which in prose we should reject as a barbarism, may, with 
strict propriety, be admitted in verse. Here, also, there are 
limits which must not be passed ; and, perhaps, any word, 
which cannot plead the authority of Milton, or of any con- 
temporary or later poet, may be justly regarded as obsolete. 
In prose, no word, unless the subject be art or science, should 
be employed, which has been disused for a period greater 
than the age of man. This is the judgment of the same 
critic. Against this answer, indeed, it is possible to raise a 
thousand cavils ; and, perhaps, we shall be reminded of the 
poet's strictures on the term ancient in his days a . One thing, 
however, is certain, that, though it be difficult to fix a pre- 
cise limit, where the authority of precedent terminates, and 
legislative usage commences, or to define with precision the 
age of man, it must be acknowledged, that there are limits, 
in respect to usage, which we must not overleap, as there is 
a certain term, which the life of man cannot surpass. 

As there is a period, beyond which precedent in language 
ceases to have authority; so, on the contrary, the usage of 
the present day is not implicitly to be adopted. Mankind are 
fond of novelty ; and there is a fashion in language, as there 

a " Est vetus, atque probus, centum qui perficit annos. 
Quid? qui cleperiit minor uno mense, vel anno; 
Inter quos referendus erit? veteresne poetas, 
An quos et praesens et postera respuet setas ? 
Iste quidem veteres inter ponetur honeste, 
Qui vel mense brevi, vel toto est junior anno. 
Utor permisso, caudaeque pilos ut equina? 
Paulatim vello ; et demo unum, demo etiam unum ; 
Dum cadat elusus ratione ruentis acervi, 
Qui redit ad fastos." Horace, Ep. I. Lib. 2. 

Q 2 



228 CANONS OF CRITICISM. 

is in dress. Whim, vanity, and affectation, delight in creat- 
ing new words. Of these, the far greater part soon sink into 
contempt. They figure for a little, like ephemeral produc- 
tions, in tales, novels, and fugitive papers ; and are shortly 
consigned to degradation and oblivion. Now, to adopt every 
new-fangled upstart at its birth, would argue not taste, nor 
judgment, but childish fondness for singularity and novelty. 
On the contrary, if any of these should maintain its ground, 
and receive the sanction of a reputable usage, to reject it, in 
this case, would be to resist that authority, to which every 
critic and grammarian must bow with submission. The term 
mob, for example, was, at its introduction, zealously opposed 
by Dean Swift. His resistance, however, was ineffectual ; 
and to reject it now would betray prudish affectation, and 
fruitless perversity. The word inimical, previously to the 
American war, could, I believe, plead, in its favour, only one 
authority. In some dictionaries, accordingly it was omitted; 
and in others stigmatized as a barbarism. It has now ob- 
tained a permanent establishment, and is justly admitted by 
every lexicographer. 

" In words, as fashions, the same rule will hold ; 
Alike fantastic, if too new or old : 
Be not the first, by whom the new are tried, 
Nor yet the last to lay the old aside." 

Pojjes Essay on Criticism. 

In short, in this, as in every other question on this sub- 
ject, perspicuity should be our guide. If the subject be 
art or science, or if the composition be intended for literary 
men, then a greater latitude may be allowed, as the reader is 
supposed to be master of the language, in all its varieties. 
But if the subject be accommodated to common capacity, and 
the composition designed for ordinary readers, the rule now 
given, not to employ a word, which has been disused for a 
period greater than the age of man, will be deemed, I con- 
ceive, rational and necessary. 

The usage, then, which gives law to language, and which 
is generally denominated " good usage," must be reputable, 
national, and present. It happens, however, that " good 
usage" is not always uniform in her decisions, and that un- 



CANONS OF CRITICISM. 229 

questionable authorities are found for different modes of ex- 
pression. In such cases, the following canons, proposed by 
the same author, will be of considerable service, in enabling 
the reader to decide, to which phraseology the preference is 
due. These canons I shall give, nearly in the words of the 
author ; and illustrate them, as I proceed, by a few apposite 
examples, partly his, and partly my own. 

Canon I. — When the usage is divided, as to any particular 
words or phrases, and when one of the expressions is suscep- 
tible of a different meaning, while the other admits only one 
signification, the expression, which is strictly univocal, should 
be preferred. 

For this reason, aught*, for "anything," is better than 
ought; scarcely, as an adverb, better than scarce; by con- 
sequence is preferable to of consequence, which signifies 
also " of importance ; " and exceedingly* as an adverb, is 
preferable to exceeding. 

For the same reason, to purpose, for "to intend," is better 
than to propose, which signifies also " to lay before," or " sub- 
mit to consideration;" and proposal, for " a thing offered or 
proposed," is better than " proposition," which denotes also 
" a position," or the " affirmation of any principle or maxim." 
Thus we say, " he demonstrated Euclid's proposition," and 
" he rejected the proposal of his friend." 

Agreeably also to this canon, disposal, in common lan- 
guage, when a grant, or giving away is denoted, or when the 
management of anything is to be expressed, is preferable to 
disposition, which signifies also arrangement, and likewise 
temper of mind ; and exposure, as the verbal noun from ex- 
pose, is better than exposition, the verbal noun of expound. 
We should say, " the exposure of a fault," and " the exposi- 
tion of a text." The analogous words composure, from com- 
pose, and composition, from compound, or compose, have been 
suffered to retain their distinct significations. " To speak 
contemptuously of a person," is better than " to speak con- 
temptibly ;" the latter term meaning generally, "in a con- 
temptible manner," or, " in a manner worthy of contempt ; " 

a The Saxon word is awiht, contracted auht, aliquid. 



230 CANONS OF CRITICISM, 

whereas the former is univocal, and denotes disrespectfully, or 
" in a manner significant of contempt." 

For the same reason, obvious, for " evident," is better than 
apparent, which means also " seeming," as opposed to " real." 

The term primitive, as equivalent to original, is preferable 
to primary. The latter is synonymous with principal, and is 
opposed to secondary ; the former is equivalent to original, 
and is opposed to derivative or acquired. I shall illustrate 
this distinction by a few examples. The words falsehood and 
lie agree in expressing the same primary idea, namely, " con- 
trariety to fact ; " but they differ in their secondary ideas, the 
former implying simply, " inconsistency with physical truth," 
the latter being a term of reproach, expressing " a wilful 
breach of veracity, or of moral truth." To kill, and to murder, 
agree also in their primary ideas, both denoting " the depri- 
vation of life ;" but they differ in their secondary, the former 
implying no moral turpitude, the latter denoting an immoral 
act. From these examples it will appear, that primary de- 
notes "what is principal or chief," as opposed to " secondary," 
or " subordinate." 

Primitive is equivalent to original ; thus we say, the pri- 
mitive meaning of the word villain, was " a nearer tenant to 
the lord of the manor;" custom has altered its signification, 
and it now denotes " a wicked fellow." Thus the primary 
and the primitive meaning of words may be very different ; 
these terms, therefore, ought to be duly discriminated. 

Intension, for " the act of stretching or straining," is for 
the same reason, preferable to intention, which signifies also 
" purpose," or " design." " I am mistaken," is frequently 
used to denote " I misunderstand," or " I am in error;" but 
as this expression may also signify, " I am misunderstood," 
it is better to say, " I mistake." 

This canon I would earnestly recommend to the observance 
of every writer, who is solicitous to exclude all unnecessary 
ambiguity, but more emphatically to my junior readers, who 
are peculiarly prone' to the violation of this rule, misled by 
false notions of elegance and dignity. There prevails at pre- 
sent a foolish and ridiculous, not to say absurd, disposition in 
some writers, to prefer in every instance, with no discrimina- 



CANONS OF CRITICISM. 231 

tion, long to short words. They seem to entertain an in- 
veterate antipathy to monosyllabic terms; and disdaining 
whatever savours of Saxon origin, are incessantly searching 
after the sesquipedalia verba of Greek or Latin extraction, 
with no regard whatever to precision and perspicuity. Thus 
many words, which cannot be dismissed without detriment 
to the language, are falling into disuse, and their places sup- 
plied by equivocal and less appropriate terms. 

• Canon II.— -In doubtful cases analogy should be regarded. 

For this reason, contemporary is better than cotemporary, 
con being used before a consonant, and co before a vowel; as, 
concomitant, coeval. 

For the same reason, " he needs" " lie dares" a whether 
he will or not" are better than " he need" " he dare" 
u whether he will or no" The last of the three phraseologies, 
here recommended, Priestley thinks exceptionable. To me, 
as to Campbell, the ellipsis appears evident ; thus, " whether 
he will, or will not:" hence " will not" seems the only ana- 
logical expression. 

Canon III. — When expressions are in other respects equal, 
that should be preferred, which is most agreeable to the ear. 
This requires no illustration. 

Canon IV.— When none of the preceding rules take place, 
regard should be had to simplicity. On this ground, " ac- 
cept," " approve," " admit," are preferable to " accept of," 
" approve of," " admit of." 

I have already observed, that no expression, or mode of 
speech, can be justified, which is not sanctioned by usage. 
The converse, however, does not follow, that every phrase- 
ology, sanctioned by usage, should be retained ; and, in such 
cases, custom may properly be checked by criticism, whose 
province it is, not only to remonstrate against the introduc- 
tion of any word or phraseology, which may be either unne- 
cessary or contrary to analogy, but also to extrude whatever 
is reprehensible, though in general use. It is by this exer- 
cise of her prerogative, that languages are gradually refined 



232 CANONS OF CRITICISM. 

and improved ; and were this denied, language would soon 
become stationary, or more probably would hasten to decline. 
In exercising this authority, she cannot pretend to degrade in- 
stantly any phraseology, which she may deem objectionable ; 
but she may, by repeated remonstrances, gradually effect its 
dismission. Her decisions in such cases may be properly regu- 
lated by the following canons, as delivered by the same author. 

Canon I. — All words and phrases, particularly harsh, and 
not absolutely necessary, should be dismissed ; as, " sharae- 
facedness," " unsuccessfulness," " wrongheadedness." 

Canon II. — When the etymology plainly points to a dif- 
ferent signification from what the word bears, propriety and 
simplicity require its dismission. For example, the word 
" beholden," taken for " obliged," or the verb " to unloose," 
for " to loose," or " untie," should be rejected. 

Canon III. — When words become obsolete, or are never 
used, but in particular phrases, they should be repudiated; 
as they give the style an air of vulgarity and cant, when their 
general disuse renders them obscure. Of these " lief," " dint," 
" whit," " moot," " pro and con," furnish examples ; as, " I 
had as lief go," " by dint of argument," " not a whit better," 
" a moot point," " it was argued pro and con." These 
phraseologies are vulgar, and savour too much of cant to be 
admitted in good writing. 

Canon IV. — All words and phrases, which, analyzed gram- 
matically, include a solecism, should be dismissed; as, " I 
had rather go." The expression should be, " I would," or 
" I 'd rather go : " and from the latter, the solecism " I had 
go," seems by mistake to have arisen, I'd being erroneously 
conceived to be contracted for / had, instead of a contraction 
for I would. This is the opinion of Campbell, and to this 
opinion I expressed my assent, in the former edition of this 
Treatise. I acknowledge, however, that it now appears to me 
not strictly correct ; and that Webster has not questioned its 
accuracy on insufficient grounds. In the phrases adduced by 



CANONS OF CRITICISM. 233 

Campbell, such as " I'd go," "I'd rather stay," we can readily 
perceive the probability that Td is a contraction for "I would." 
But in such expressions as " I had like to have been caught," 
which occur not only in colloquial language, but also in 
authors of considerable name, it is impossible to admit Camp- 
bell's explanation. I must observe also, that the phraseology, 
which he censures, occurs in some of our earliest writers, and 
is so frequently found in Pope and Swift, that one is tempted 
to infer, notwithstanding its solecistic appearance, that it is 
genuine English. It is difficult, however, nay, perhaps im- 
possible, to reconcile it to analogy. Were I to offer conjec- 
ture on the subject, I should be inclined to say, that in such 
phrases as " I had go," I had is, by a grammatical figure 
very common in English, put for i" would have, or I would 
possess, and that the simple name of the act or state, by an 
ellipsis perhaps of the verbal sign, is subjoined, as the object 
wished, no regard being had to the completion of the action ; 
in the same manner as we say, I would have gone, when we 
wish the action perfected. But by whatever authority this 
phraseology may be recommended, and in whatever way it 
may be reconciled to the rules of syntax, it has so much the 
appearance of solecism, that I decidedly prefer with Campbell 
the unexceptional form of expression, Z" would. The phrase 
I had like appears to me utterly irreconcilable with any 
principle of analogy. 

Canon V. — All expressions, which, according to the es- 
tablished rules of the language, either have no meaning, or 
involve a contradiction, or, according to the fair construction 
of the words, convey a meaning different from the intention 
of the speaker, should be dismissed. Thus, when a person 
says, " he sings a good song," the words strictly imply that 
" the song is good," whereas the speaker means to say, " he 
sings well." In like manner, when it is said, " this is the 
best part he acts," the sentence, according to the strict in- 
terpretation of the words, expresses an opinion, not of his 
manner of acting, but of the part or character which he acts. 
It should be, " he acts this part best," or " this is the part 
which he acts best." "He plays a good fiddle," for "he 



234 CANONS OF CRITICISM. 

plays well on the fiddle," is, for the same reason, objection- 
able. 

Of expressions involving a contradiction, the following 
will serve as an example. " There were four ladies in com- 
pany, every one prettier than another." This is impossible. 
If A was prettier than B, B must have been less pretty than 
A; but by the expression every one was prettier than another, 
therefore B was also prettier than A. Such absurdities as 
this ought surely to be banished from every language a . 

Of those, which have little or no meaning, Campbell has 
given us examples, " currying favour," " having a month's 
mind," " shooting at rovers." Such modes of expression, ho 
justly calls trash, the disgrace of any language. 

These canons I have extracted from " Campbell on 
Rhetoric," a book which I would recommend to the reader's 
attentive perusal. 

I proceed to observe, that to write any language with 
grammatical purity, implies these three things : 

1st. That the words be all of that language. 

2ndly. That they be construed and arranged, according to 
the rules of syntax in that language. 

3rdly. That they be employed in that sense, which usage 
has annexed to them. 

Grammatical purity, therefore, may be violated in three 
ways : 

1st. The words may not be English. This error is called 
barbarism. 

2ndly. Their construction may be contrary to the English 
idiom. This error is termed solecism. 

3rdly. They may be used in a sense different from their es- 
tablished acceptation. This error is named impropriety 15 . 

The barbarism is an offence against lexicography, by ad- 
mitting new words, as, "volupty," "connexity," "majestatic ;" 
or by using obsolete words, as, " uneath," " erst ;" or an 

a We have remarked the same violation of common sense, as occur- 
ring in Cicero, oftener than once. " Alium alio nequiorem." — Ep. Fam. 
" Aliam alia jucundiorem." — Att. 

b Deprehendat, quae barbara, quae impropria, quae contra legem lo- 
quendi composita. — Quintil. lib. i. cap. 5. 



CANONS OF CRITICISM. 235 

offence against etymology, by improper inflection, as, 
" teached " for " taught," " oxes " for " oxen." 

The solecism is an offence against the rules of syntax, as, 
" I reads," " you was." 

The impropriety is an offence against lexicography, by 
mistaking the meaning of words or phrases. 

A solecism is regarded by grammarians as a much greater 
offence than either of the others; because it betrays a greater 
ignorance of the principles of the language. Rhetorically 
considered, it is deemed a less trespass ; for the rhetorician 
and grammarian estimate the magnitude of errors by different 
standards; the former inquiring only how far any error 
militates against the great purpose of his art — persuasion ; 
the latter, how far it betrays an ignorance of the principles of 
grammar. Hence with the former, obscurity is the greatest 
trespass ; with the latter, solecism, and that species of bar- 
barism which violates the rules of etymology a . 

a In conformity to the example of most of our grammarians, I have 
employed the term etymology in the title of this work, and wherever else 
it occurs, as denoting that part of grammar, which teaches the inflection 
of words. In its primitive acceptation, it means an exposition of their 
derivation, and is still employed in that sense, as well as in the signifi- 
cation in which it is here used. Some writers have preferred the term 
analogy to express the doctrine of inflection. If the principle of analogy 
or similitude were confined to inflection, the designation might be proper ; 
but, as this principle extends to the concord, the government, and the 
collocation, generally termed the syntax of words, it cannot be considered 
an appropriate name for that part of grammar, which teaches merely in- 
flection or verbal termination. Analogy is the leading principle, on 
which every grammatical rule is founded ; and those, who have employed 
the term for etymology, it would be easy to show, have not been ob- 
servant of strict consistency. 



236 CRITICAL REMARKS 

CHAPTER II. 

CRITICAL REMARKS AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Having, in the preceding chapter, explained the nature of 
that usage which gives law to language ; and having pro- 
posed a few rules for the student's direction in cases where 
usage is divided, and also where her authority may be justly 
questioned and checked by criticism ; I intend, in the follow- 
ing pages, to present the young reader with a copious ex- 
emplification of the three general species of error against 
grammatical purity, arranging the examples in the order of 
the parts of speech. 



SECTION I. 
THE NOUN. 

I5AREARISM. 

" I rode in a one-horse chay." It ought to be " a one-horse 
chaise. 1 ' There is no such word as chay. 

(i That this has been the true and proper acception of this 
word, I shall testify by one evidence." — Hammond. Ac- 
ception is obsolete ; it ought to be acceptation. 

" Were the workmen to enter into a contrary combination 
of the same kind, not to accept of a certain wage." — Wealth 
of Nations. Wage is obsolete ; the plural only is used. 

" Their alliance was sealed by the nuptial of Henry, with 
the daughter of the Italian prince." — Gibbon. Nuptial has 
not, I believe, been used as a substantive since the days of 
Shakspeare, and may be deemed obsolete. The plural nup- 
tials is the proper word. 

" He showed that he had a full comprehension of the whole 
of the plan, and of the judicious adaption of the parts to 
the whole." — Sheridan's Life of Swift. Adaption is ob- 
solescent, if not obsolete : adaptation is the proper term. 
Adaption is frequently employed by Swift, from whom 
Sheridan seems to have copied it. 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 237 

• . . . " Which even his brother modernists themselves, like 
migrates, whisper so loud that it reaches up to the very 
garret I am now writing in." — Swift. "Ungrate" is a bar- 
barism. " Ingrate " is to be found in some of our English 
poets as an adjective, and synonymous with " ungrateful ;" 
but " ungrate," as a substantive, is truly barbarous. Almost 
equally objectionable is Steele's use of stupid as a sub- 
stantive plural. " Thou art no longer to drudge in raising 
the mirth of stupids." — Spectator, No. 468. And also of 
ignorant, " the ignorants of the lowest order." — Ibid. 

Pope also says, in one of his letters, " We are curious im- 
pertinents in the case of futurity." This employment of the 
adjective as a noun substantive, though never sanctioned by 
general use, is now properly avoided by our most reputable 
writers. It tends to confusion, where distinction is necessary. 

" The Deity dwelleth between the cherubims." The 
Hebrews form the plural of masculines by adding im ; 
" cherubims," therefore, is a double plural. " Seraphims," 
for the same reason, is faulty. The singular of these words 
being " cherub" and " seraph," the plural is either " cherubs" 
and "seraphs," or " cherubim" and "seraphim." Milton has 
uniformly avoided this mistake, which circumstance Addison, 
in his criticisms on that author, has overlooked ; nay, he has, 
even with Milton's correct usage before him, committed the 
error. " The zeal of the seraphim? says he, " breaks forth 
in a becoming warmth of sentiments and expressions, as the 
character which is given of Mm, &c. Here " seraphim," a 
plural noun, is used as singular. It should be, "the zeal of 
the seraph." 

" Nothing can be more pleasant than to see virtuosoes 
about a cabinet of medals descanting upon the value, the 
rarity, and authenticalness of the several pieces." Autlien- 
ticalness, though used by Addison, is obsolescent, and may, 
perhaps, be deemed a barbarism. It may be properly dis- 
missed, as a harsh and unnecessary term. 

" He broke off with Lady Gifford, one of his oldest ac- 
quaintances in life." — SheridaiCs Life of Swift. Acquaint- 
ances is now deemed a Scotticism, being almost peculiar to 
the northern parts of the island. Johnson, however, did not 



238 CRITICAL REMARKS 

disclaim it. " A young student from the inns of court, who 
has often attacked the curate of his father's parish, with such 
arguments as his acquaintances could furnish." — Rambler. 
We find it also in Steele ; thus, " she pays everybody their 
own,andyet makes daily new acquaintances." — Tatler, No. 109. 

" I am sure that the farmeress at Bevis would feel emotions 

of vanity if she knew you gave her the character 

of a reasonable woman." — Lord Peterborough to Pope. 
This, I believe, is the only passage in which farmeress is to 
be found; but, though it may therefore be pronounced a 
barbarism, the author could not have expressed himself so 
clearly and so concisely, in any other way. We every now 
and then, as Johnson observes, feel the want of a feminine 
termination. 

" The bellowses were broken." The noun, as here in- 
flected, is barbarous. " Bellows " is a plural word denoting 
a single instrument, though consisting of two parts. There 
is, therefore, no such word as " bellowses." 

SOLECISM*. 

" I have read Horace Art of Poetry." This expression 
may be deemed solecistical, being a violation of that rule, 
by which one substantive governs another in the genitive. 
It should be, " Horace's Art of Poetry." " These are ladies 
ruffles," "this is the kings picture," are errors of the same 
kind, for "ladies' ruffles," " the king's picture." 

" These three great genius's flourished at the same time." 
Here " genius's," the genitive singular, is improperly used 
for " geniuses," the nominative plural. 

" They have of late, 'tis true, reformed, in some measure, 
the gouty joints and darning work of whereunto's, whereby's, 
thereof s, therewith^, and the rest of this kind." — Shaftes- 
bury. Here also the genitive singular is improperly used for 
the objective case plural. It should be, whereuntos, whereby s, 
thereof s 9 therewiths. 

" Both those people, acute and inquisitive to excess, cor- 
rupted the sciences." — Adams s History of England. 

a The reader is requested to observe, that under " solecism," I have 
included several phraseologies, which, though not consistent with syntac- 
tical propriety, may be justly called by the softer name of " inaccuracies." 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 239 

"Two rival peoples, the Jews and the Samaritans, have 
preserved separate exemplars of it." — Geddes Preface to his 
Translation of the Bible. The former of these passages in- 
volves a palpable error, the word "people," here equivalent 
to nation, and. in the singular number, being joined with both 
or " the two," a term of plurality. In the latter, this error is 
avoided, the noun being employed in the plural number. 
This usage, however, though sanctioned by the authority of 
our translators of the Bible in two passages, seems now to be 
obsolete. States, tribes, nations, appear to be preferable. 

" I bought a scissars," " I want a tongs," " it is a tattered 
colours," involve a palpable solecism, the term significant of 
unity being joined with a plural word. It should be " a pair 
of scissars," " a pair of tongs," " a pair of colours." 

" They tell us, that the fashion of jumbling fifty things to- 
gether in a dish was at first introduced, in compliance to a 
depraved and debauched appetite." — Swift. 

We say, " comply with;" therefore, by Rule xvii. "in com- 
pliance with" is the analogical form of expression, and has 
the sanction of classical usage. 

" The fortitude of a man, who brings his will to the 
obedience of his reason."— Steele, Analogy requires " obe- 
dience to." We say, obedient to command : the person 
obeying is expressed in the genitive, or with the preposition 
of; and the person or thing obeyed with the preposition to, 
as, " a servant's obedience," or " the obedience of a servant 
to the orders of his master." 

"Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." 
— Bible. "Attendance" and "attention" are verbal nouns, 
derived from "attend." When the verb signifies "to re- 
gard," or " to fix the mind upon," it is followed by to, as, 
" he attends to his studies," and the verbal noun is " atten- 
tion," construed, agreeably to Rule xvii. in the same manner 
as the verb. Thus, " he gives attention to his studies." But 
when " to attend" signifies " to wait on," or "be present at," 
it is followed by on, upon, or at, and is sometimes used 
without the preposition. 

Thus, " if any minister refused to admit a lecturer recom- 
mended to him, he was required to attend upon the com- 
mittee." — Clarendon » 



240 CRITICAL REMARKS 

" He attended at the consecration with becoming gravity." 
— Hume. In this sense the verbal noun is " attendance," and 
construed like the verb, when it bears this signification. In 
the sentence, therefore, last quoted, syntax requires, either 
"attendance at" or " attention to." The latter conveys the 
meaning of the original. 

IMPROPRIETY. 

" The observation of the Sabbath is a duty incumbent on 
every Christian." It should be, "the observance." Both 
substantives are derived from the verb " to observe." When 
the verb means " to keep," or " obey," the verbal noun is 
" observance ;" when " to remark," or " to notice," the noun 
is " observation." 

" They make such acquirements, as fit them for useful 
avocations." — Staunton s Embassy to China. 

The word avocation is frequently, as in the example before 
us, confounded with vocation. By the latter is clearly sig- 
nified "calling," "trade," "employment," "business," "occu- 
pation ;" and by the former is meant whatever withdraws, 
distracts, or diverts us from that business. No two words 
can be more distinct ; yet we often see them confounded. 

" A supplication of twenty days was decreed to his honour." 
— Henry's History of Britain. The term supplication is in 
our language confined to what Johnson calls " petitionary 
worship," and always implies request, entreaty, or petition. 
The Latin term supplicatio has a more extensive meaning, 
and likewise suppliciuni, each denoting not only prayer, 
strictly so called, but also thanksgiving. The latter of these 
should have been employed by the author. 

" Our pleasures are purer, when consecrated by nations, 
and cherished by the greatest genii among men." — Black- 
welVs Mythology. Genii means spirits. (See p. 18.) It 
ought to be geniuses. 

I have already remarked (see p. 31), that, when the pri- 
mary idea implied in the masculine and feminine terms is the 
chief object of attention, and when the sex does not enter as 
a matter of consideration, the masculine term should be em- 
ployed, even when the female is signified. Thus, the 
Monthly Reviewer, in giving a critique on the poems of 






AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 241 

Mrs. Grant, says, in allusion to that lady, " such is the poet's 
request." This is strictly proper. He considers her merely 
as a writer of poetry. But, were we to say, " as a poet she 
ought not to choose for her theme the story of Abelard," we 
should be chargeable with error. For this would imply, that 
the story of Abelard is not a fit subject for a poem, — a 
sentiment manifestly false. There is no incongruity between 
the subject and poetry, but between the subject and female 
delicacy. We ought, therefore, to say, " as a poetess, she 
ought not to choose for her theme the story of Abelard." 

"It was impossible not to suspect the veracity of this 
story. 1 ' " Veracity " is applicable to persons only, and pro- 
perly denotes that moral quality or property, which consists 
in speaking truth, being in its import nearly synonymous with 
the fashionable, but grossly perverted term, honour : it is, 
therefore, improperly applied to things. It should be " the 
truth of this story." The former denotes moral, and the 
latter physical truth. We therefore say " the truth " or 
" verity of the relation or thing told," and " the veracity of 
the relater." 

Pope has entitled a small dissertation, prefixed to his 
translation of the Iliad, " A View of the Epic Poem," misled, 
it is probable, by Bossu's title of a similar work, " Traite du 
Poeme Epique." Poem denotes the work or thing com- 
posed ; " the art of making," which is here intended, is 
termed poesy. 

An error similar to this occurs in the following passage - 
" I apprehend that all the sophism which has been or can be 
employed, will not be sufficient to acquit this system at the 
tribunal of reason." — Bolingbroke. " Sophism " is properly 
defined by Johnson, " a fallacious argument ;" sophistry 
means " fallacious reasoning," or " unsound argumentation." 
The author should have said " all the sophistry," or " all the 
sophisms." 

" The Greek is, doubtless, a language much superior in 
riches, harmony, and variety to the Latin." — CamphelVs 
Rhet. As the properties or qualities of the languages are 
here particularly compared, I apprehend, that the abstract 
" richness" would be a more apposite term. "Riches" pro- 
it 



242 CRITICAL REMARKS 

perly denotes " the things possessed," or " what constitutes 
the opulence of the owner;" "richness" denotes the state, 
quality, or property of the individual, as possessed of these. 
The latter, therefore, appears to me the more appropriate 
term. 

"He felt himself compelled to acknowledge the justice of 
my remark." The justness would, agreeably to Canon 1st, 
be the preferable word, the former term being confined to 
persons, and the latter to things. 

" The negligence of this leaves us exposed to an uncom- 
mon levity in our usual conversation." — Spectator. It ought 
to be " the neglect." " Negligence " implies a habit ; " neg- 
lect " expresses an act. 

" For I am of opinion that it is better a language should 
not be wholly perfect, than it should be perpetually chang- 
ing; and we must give over at one time, or at length in- 
fallibly change for the worse ; as the Romans did when they 
began to quit their simplicity of style for affected refinements, 
such as we meet with in Tacitus, and other authors, which 
ended, by degrees, in many barbarities." Barbarity, in this 
sense, is obsolescent. The univocal term, barbarism, is much 
preferable. 

Gibbon, speaking of the priest, says, " to obtain the ac- 
ceptation of this guide to salvation, you must faithfully pay 
him tythes." Acceptation in this sense is obsolete, or at least 
nearly out of use ; it should he favour or acceptance. 

" She ought to lessen the extravagant power of the duke 
and duchess, by taking the disposition of employments into 
her own hands." — Swift. Disposal, for reasons already 
assigned a , is much better. 

" The conscience of approving one's self a benefactor to 
mankind, is the noblest recompense for being so." " Con- 
science" is the faculty by which we judge our own conduct. 
It is here improperly used for " consciousness," or the per- 
ception of what passes within ourselves. 

" If reasons were as plenty as blackberries, I would give no 
man a reason on compulsion." — Shakspeare. Here plenty, 
a substantive, is improperly used for plentiful. 
a See Canon I., p. 229. 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 243 

"It had a prodigious quantity of windows." — Spencers 
Excursions. It should be number. This error frequently 
occurs in common conversation. "We hear of " a quantity 
of people," of " a quantity of troops," " a quantity of boys 
and girls," just as if they were to be measured by the bushel, 
or weighed in the balance. — " To-morrow will suit me equally 
well." If we enquire here for a nominative to the verb, we 
find none, morrow being under the government of the pre- 
position. This error is so common, that we fear its correc- 
tion is hopeless. The translators of the Bible seem carefully 
to have avoided this inaccuracy: — " To-morrow [i. e. c on the 
morrow') the Lord shall do this;" " And the Lord did that 
thing on the morrow." Analogy requires, that we should 
say, " The morrow will suit me equally well." 

" I have the Dublin copy of Gibbon's History." This is 
a Scotticism for Dublin edition; and so palpable, that I 
should not have mentioned it, were it not found in authors of 
no contemptible merit. " I have no right to be forced," said 
a citizen to a magistrate, " to serve as constable." This per- 
version of the word right, originally, we believe, a cockney- 
ism, is gradually gaining ground, and is found in composi- 
tions, into which nothing but extreme inattention can ac- 
count for its introduction. A right implies a just claim, or 
title to some privilege, freedom, property, or distinction, sup- 
posed by the claimant to be conducive to his benefit. We 
should smile, if we heard a foreigner, in vindication of his in- 
nocence, say, " I have no right to be imprisoned ;" " I have 
no right to be hanged." The perversion here is too palpable 
to escape our notice. But we hear a similar, though not so 
ridiculous, an abuse of the word, in common conversation 
without surprise. " I have no right," says one, " to be taxed 
with this indiscretion ;" " I have no right," says another, " to 
be subjected to this penalty." These phraseologies are ab- 
surd. They involve a contradiction ; they presume a bene- 
fit, while they imply an injury. The correlative term on one 
side is right, and on the other obligation ; a creditor has a 
right to a just debt, and the debtor is under an obligation to 
pay it. Instead of these indefensible phraseologies we should 
say, " I am not bound," or " I am under no obligation to 

e 2 



244 CRITICAL REMARKS 

submit to this penalty;" "I ought not to be taxed with 
this indiscretion," or " you have no right to subject me," 
" you have no right to tax me." 

Robertson, when speaking of the Mexican form of govern- 
ment (Book viith), says, " But the description of their policy 
and laws is so inaccurate and contradictory, that it is diffi- 
cult to delineate the form of their constitution with any pre- 
cision." I should here prefer the appropriate and univocal 
term polity, which denotes merely the form of government ; 
policy means rather wisdom or prudence, or the art of govern- 
ing, which may exist where there is no settled polity. 

" A letter relative to certain calumnies and misrepresenta- 
tions which have appeared in the Edinburgh Review, wtth 
an exposition of the ignorance of the new critical junto." — 
Here, agreeably to Canon I. (see p. 229), I should prefer ex- 
posure, as being a word strictly univocal. It would conduce to 
perspicuity were we to consider exposition as the verbal noun 
of expound, and confine it entirely to explanation, and ex- 
posure as the verbal noun of expose, signifying the act of set- 
ting out, or the state of being set out or exposed. 






SECTION II. 

THE ADJECTIVE. 

BARBARISM. 

" Instead of an able man, you desire to have him an insig- 
nificant wrangler, opiniatre in discourse, and priding himself 
on contradicting others." — Locke. Opiniatre is a barbarism; 
it should be opinion ative. 

" And studied lines, and fictious circles draw." — Prior. 
The word fictions is of Prior's own coining ; it is barbarous. 

" The punishment that belongs to that great and criminous 
guilt is the forfeiture of his right and claim to all mercies." — 
Hammond. Criminous is a barbarism. 

" Which, even in the most overly view, will appear incom- 
patible with any sort of music." — Karnes's Elements. Overly 
is a Scotticism ; in England it is now obsolete. The proper 
term is cursory or superficial. 

"Who should believe, that a man should be a doctor for 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 245 

the cure of bursten children?" — Steele. The participle 
bursten is now obsolete. 

" Callisthenes, the philosopher, that followed Alexander's 
court, and hated the king, being asked, how one should be- 
come the famousest man in the world, answered, By taking 
away him that is." — Bacons Apophth. The superlative is a 
barbarism ; it should be, " most famous." 

SOLECISM. 

" I do not like these kind of men." Here the plural word 
these is joined to a noun singular; it should be, " this kind.'' 
" Those sort," " these kind of things," are gross solecisms. 

" Neither do I see it is any crime, farther than ill manners, 
to differ in opinion from the majority of either, or both 
houses ; and that ill manners I have often been guilty of." — 
Swiff s Examiner. Here is another egregious solecism. He 
should have said, " those ill manners," or " that species of 
ill manners." 

" The landlord was quite unfurnished of every kind of pro- 
vision." — Sheridan s Life of Swift. We say, " to furnish 
witli" not " to furnish of." Furnished and unfurnished are 
construed in the same manner. It should be, " unfurnished 
with:' 

" A child of four years old was thus cruelly deserted by its 
parents." This form of expression frequently occurs, and is 
an egregious solecism. It should be, u a child four years old," 
or " aged four years," not " of four years." Those who em- 
ploy this incorrect phraseology, seem misled by confounding 
two very different modes of expression, namely, " a child of 
four years of age," or " of the age of four years," and " a child 
four years old." The preposition of is requisite in the two 
first of these forms, but inadmissible in the third. They 
would not say, " I am of four years old," but " I am four 
years old;" hence, consistently, they ought to say, "a child 
four years old." " At ten years old, I was put to a grammar 
school." — Steele. Grammatically this is, " I old at ten 
years." 

" This account is very different to what I told you." " I 
found your affairs had been managed in a different manner 
than what I advised." Both these phraseologies are faulty. 



246 CRITICAL REMARKS 

It should be in each, " different from? The verb " to differ" 
is construed with from before the second object of disparity; 
the adjective therefore should (by Rule xvii.) be construed in 
the same manuer. 

" These words have the same sense of those others." 
Same should be followed with as, with, or the relatives who, 
which, that. It ought, therefore, to be, " as those," or " with 
those," or " have the sense of those others." 

" I shall ever depend on your constant friendship, kind 
memory, and good offices, though I were never to see or 
hear the effects of them, like the trust we have in benevolent 
spirits, who, though we never see or hear them, we think 
are constantly serving and praying for us." — Popes Letters 
to Atterbury. Like can have no grammatical reference to 
any word in the sentence but /, and this reference is absurd. 
He should have said, " as, or just as, we trust in benevolent 
spirits." 

" This gentleman rallies the best of any man I know." 
Addison. The superlative must be followed by of, the pre- 
position implying out of a plurality, expressed either by a 
collective noun, or a plural number. But here we have a se- 
lection denoted by of, and the selection to be made out of 
one. This is absurd. It should be, " better than any other" 
— the best of all men — "I know;" " this gentleman, of all 
my acquaintance, rallies the best;" or "of all my acquaint- 
ance, there is no one, who rallies so well as this gentleman." 

" Besides, those, whose teeth are too rotten to bite, are 
best, of all others, qualified to revenge that defect with their 
breath." — Preface to A Tale of a Tub. 

" Here," says Sheridan, "the disjunction of the word best 
from the word qualified makes the sentence uncouth, which 
would run better thus, ' are, of all others, best qualified.' " 
So far Mr. Sheridan is right ; but he has left uncorrected a 
very common error. The antecedent subject of comparison 
is here absurdly referred at once to the same, and to a dif- 
ferent aggregate, the word of referring it to others, to which, 
it is opposed, and to which therefore it cannot, without a 
contradiction, be said to belong. The sentence, therefore, in- 
volves an absurdity: either the word others should be ex- 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 247 

punged, when the sentence would run thus, " Those, whose 
teeth are too rotten to bite, are, of all, best qualified to re- 
venge that defect;" or, if the word others be retained, the 
clause should be, " are better qualified than all others." a 

The phraseology here censured is admissible in those cases 
only where a previous comparison has been made. If We 
say, " To engage a private tutor for a single pupil is, per- 
haps, of all others, the least eligible mode of giving literary 
instruction/' (Barrow on Education,) without making that 
previous discrimination, which the word others implies, we 
commit an error. But we may say with propriety, " I pre- 
fer the mode of education adopted in our public schools; 
and of all other modes, to engage a private tutor appears to 
me the least eligible." 

IMPROPRIETY. 

" They could easier get them by heart, and retain them in 
memory." — Adams's History of England. Here the adject- 
ive is improperly used for the adverb ; it ought to be " more 
easily." Swift commits a similar error, when he says, " Ned 
explained his text so full and clear," for " so fully and clearly." 

" Thus much, I think, is sufficient to serve, by way of ad- 
dress, to my patrons, the true modern critics, and may very 
well atone for my past silence as well as for that, which I 
am like to observe for the future." — Swift. Like, or similar, 
is here improperly used for likely, a word in signification 
nearly synonymous with probable. We say, " he is likely to 
do it," or " it is probable he will do it." 

" Charity vaunteth not itself, doth not behave itself un- 
seemly." Here the adjective unseemly is improperly used for 
the adverb, denoting " in an unseemly manner." Unseem- 
lily not being in use, the word indecently should be substi- 
tuted. 

" The Romans had no other subsistence but the scanty 

a We perceive intuitively the error of Milton, when he calls Adam 
" the comeliest of men since born," Eve also " the fairest of her daugh- 
ters," and we laugh, perhaps, when the Cork almanack-maker gravely 
tells us, " that the principal republics in Europe, are Venice, Holland, 
and America; " yet the error here reprehended is precisely of the same 
species, though it passes frequently unnoticed. See p. 74. 



248 CRITICAL REMARKS 

pillage of a few farms." Other is redundant ; it should be, 
" no subsistence but," or " no other subsistence than." In the 
Saxon language, and the earlier English writers, the word 
other is not uniformly followed by than, but sometimes with 
hut, before, save, except*, thus, Mark xii. 32, "thaer an God 
is, and nis other butan him," thus rendered in the Bishops' 
Translation, " there is one God, and there is none but he," 
and in the common version, " none other but he." In the 
Book of Common Prayer we have, " Thou shalt have no other 
Gods but me;" and the same form of expression occurs in 
Addison, Swift, and other contemporary writers. Usage, 
however, seems of late to have decided almost universally in 
favour of than. This decision is not only consistent with 
analogy, if the word other is to be deemed a comparative, but 
may also, in some cases, be subservient to perspicuity. No 
other but, no other beside, no other except, are equivalent ex- 
pressions, and do not perhaps convey precisely the same idea 
with none but, no other than. Thus, if we take an example 
similar to Baker's, and suppose a person to say " A called on 
me this morning," B asks, " No one else ? " " No other," 
answers A, " but my stationer." Here the expression, as 
Baker remarks, seems strictly proper, the words no other 
having a reference to A. But if the stationer had been the 
only visitor, he should say, " none but," or " no other than 
the stationer called on me this morning." This is the opinion 
of Baker. The distinction, which he wishes to establish, is 

a It has been already offered as the opinion of the writer, (see p. 47,) 
that the English word other is the Saxon o^ep, and that this word with 
the Arabic ahd, the Hebrew had or ahad, the Saxon o^e, the 
Teutonic odo, the Swedish udda, and probably the Latin aut, have all 
sprung from the same source, or that one of these is the parent of the 
rest, denoting unus or singulus, " one," or " one by itself." Of the origin 
of the Saxon other, Lye has hazarded no opinion. It appears to me to 
be a comparative from o^^e. To those who have carefully examined, 
and have approved the theory of Mr. Tooke, it will furnish no valid ob- 
jection against this opinion, that the word o^^e is uniformly found in 
Saxon, signifying aut. Such can have little or no difficulty in perceiving, 
not only from the similarity of the elements, but from the affinity in point 
of sense, that had, ahd, aut, o^^e, o^ert, other, or, are all members of 
one and the same family. 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 249 

sufficiently evident ; but that it is warranted by strict analysis, 
I do not mean to affirm. 

" He has eaten no bread, nor drunk no water, these two 
days." No is here improperly used for any, two negatives 
making an affirmative : it should be, " nor drunk any water." 

" The servant must have an undeniable character." Un- 
deniable is equivalent to incontrovertible, or " not admitting 
dispute." An " undeniable character," therefore, means, a 
character which cannot be denied or disputed, whether good 
or bad: it should be " unexceptionable." 

" But you are too wise to propose to yourselves an ob- 
ject inadequate to your strength." — Watson's History of 
Philip III. Inadequate means " falling short of due pro- 
portion," and is here improperly used in a sense nearly the 
reverse. It should be "to which your strength is inade- 
quate," or " superior to your strength." 

" I received a letter to-day from our mutual friend." I 
concur with Baker in considering this expression to be in- 
correct. A may be a friend to B, and also to C, and is there- 
fore a friend common to both ; but not their mutual friend : 
for this implies reciprocity between two individuals, or two 
parties. The individuals may be mutually friends; but one 
cannot be the mutual friend of the other. Locke more pro- 
perly says, " I esteem the memory of our common friend." 
This is, doubtless, the correct expression ; but, as the term 
common may denote " ordinary," or " not uncommon," the 
word mutual, though not proper, may, perhaps, as Baker 
observes, be tolerated. 

The superlatives lowest and lowermost, highest and upper- 
most, appear to me to be frequently confounded. Thus we say, 
" the lowest house in the street," when we mean the lowest in 
respect to measurement, from the basement to the top, and 
also the lowest in regard to position, the inferiority being ac- 
casioned by declivity. Now it appears to me, that when we 
refer to dimension, we should say, lowest or highest; and 
when we refer to site or situation, we ought to say, lower- 
most or uppermost. 

" It was due, perhaps, more to the ignorance of the scho- 
lars, than to the knowledge of the masters." — Swift. It 



250 CRITICAL REMARKS 

should be rather, " it was owing," or " it is ascribable." The 
author had previously been speaking of the first instructors 
of mankind, and questioning their claim to the title of sages. 
To say, then, that their right to this title, or that the appella- 
tion itself, " was due more to ignorance than to knowledge," 
is manifestly improper. Swift, however, was not singular in 
using the adjective in this sense. Steele, and some other 
contemporary writers, employed it in the same acceptation. 
" The calamities of children are due to the negligence of the 
parents." — Spectator, No. 431. It is now seldom or never 
employed as equivalent to " owing to," or " occasioned by." 

" Risible," " ludicrous," and " ridiculous," are frequently 
confounded. Risible denotes merely the capacity of laughing, 
and is applied to animals having the faculty of laughter, as, 
"man is a risible creature." Ludicrous h applicable to things 
exciting laughter simply; ridiculous to things exciting laugh- 
ter with contempt. The tricks of a monkey are ludicrous, the 
whimsies of superstition are ridiculous. " The measure of the 
mid stream for salmon among our forefathers is not less risi- 
ble." — Karnes's Sketches. He should have said " ridiculous." 

We have already expressed our doubt of the propriety of 
using the numeral adjective one, as referring to a plurality of 
individuals, denoted by a plural noun. {See p. 48.) There is 
something which is not only strange to the ear, but also 
strikes us as ungrammatical, in saying a , "The Greeks and 
the Trojans continued the contest; the one were favoured by 
Juno, the other by Venus." At the same time, it must be 
acknowledged, that there seems to be an inconsistency in 
questioning this phraseology, and yet retaining some others, 
which appear to be analogous to it, and can plead in their 
defence reputable usage. We say, " The Romans and the 
Carthaginians contended with each other ; " and " The 
English, the Dutch, and the Spaniards disputed, one with 
another, the sovereignty of the sea." Here each and one 

a In French the article and the adjectives admitting a plural termina- 
tion, the expression "les uns et les autres" joined to a plural verb is in 
perfect consistence with analogy. So also, in Latin, are utrique and 
alteri, referring to a plurality. But unus was never in this sense used as 
a plural. 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 251 

clearly refer to a plurality, expressed by a noun plural. A 
similar example occurs in the following sentence : " As the 
greatest part of mankind are more affected by things, which 
strike the senses, than by excellences, that are discovered by 
reason and thought, they form very erroneous judgments, 
when they compare one with the other." — Guardian. If we 
inquire, what one ? we find the answer to be " things." Here 
is a manifest incongruity, which might have been prevented, 
by saying, " one subject with the other," or "when they com- 
pare them together." As this construction of one, referring 
to a noun plural, seems irreconcilable with the notion of 
unity, and may be avoided, it becomes a question, whether 
this phraseology ought to be imitated. The subject, as far as I 
know, has not been considered by any of our grammarians. 

" That this was the cause of the disaster, was apparent to 
all." Apparent is sometimes used in this sense. The word, 
however, is equivocal, as it denotes seeming, opposed to real; 
and obvious, opposed to doubtful or obscure. " I consider 
the difference between him and the two authors above men- 
tioned, as more apparent than real " — Campbell. Here ap- 
parent is opposed to real; and to this sense it would be 
right to confine it, as thus all ambiguity would be effectually 
prevented. " But there soon appeared very apparent reasons 
for James's partiality." — Goldsmith. Obvious, or evident, 
would unquestionably be preferable. 

" How seldom, then, does it happen, that the mind does 
not find itself in similar circumstances ? Very rare indeed." 
— Truster's Preface to Synon. The adjective rare is here 
improperly used for the adverb. As the question, indeed, is 
adverbially proposed, it is somewhat surprising that the author 
should answer adjectively: it ought to be, "very rarely." 

" No man had ever less friends, and more enemies." Less 
refers to quantity, fewer to number ; it should be, "fewer 
friends." 

" The mind may insensibly fall off from this relish of vir- 
tuous actions, and by degrees exchange that pleasure, which 
it takes in the performance of its duty, for delights of a much 
more inferior and unprofitable nature." — Addison. Inferior 
implies comparison, but it is grammatically a positive. When 



252 CRITICAL REMARKS 

one thing is, in any respect, lower than another, we say, " it 
is inferior to it ; " and if a third thing were still lower, we 
should say, " it is still more inferior." But the author is 
comparing only two subjects ; he should therefore have said, 
" of a much inferior, and more unprofitable nature." The 
expression " more preferable " is for the same reason faulty, 
unless when two degrees of excess are implied. 

The adjectives agreeable, suitable, conformable, independ- 
ent, consistent, relative, previous, antecedent, and many 
others, are often used, where their several derivative adverbs 
would be more properly employed ; as, " he lives agreeable 
to nature," "he wrote to me previous to his coming to town," 
" tolerable good," " he acted conformable to his promise." 
It is worthy of remark, however, that the idiom of our lan- 
guage is not repugnant to some of these phraseologies; a 
circumstance which many of our grammarians have over- 
looked, if we may judge from the severity with which they 
have condemned them. If I say, " he acted according to 
nature," the expression is deemed unobjectionable: but is 
not according a participle, or, perhaps, here more properly a 
participial f " He acted contrary to nature " is also consi- 
dered as faultless; but is not contrary an adjective ? Were 
we to reason on abstract principles, or to adopt what is 
deemed the preferable phraseology, we should say, " con- 
trarily" and "accordingly to nature." This, however, is not 
the case. " Contrary to nature," "according to nature," and 
many similar phraseologies, are admitted as good: why, then, 
is "conformable to nature," an expression perfectly analogous, 
so severely condemned ? Johnson has, indeed, uselessly 
enough, in my opinion, called according a preposition ; fear- 
ful, however, of error, he adds, it is properly a participle, for 
it is followed by to. According is always a participle, as 
much as agreeing, and can be nothing else. Because se- 
cundum in Latin is termed a preposition, hence some have 
referred according to the same species of words. With equal 
propriety might in the power of be deemed a preposition, be- 
cause penes in Latin is so denominated. Now, if " he acted 
contrary to nature " and " according to nature " be deemed 
unexceptionable expressions, with many others of the same 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 253 

kind, which might be adduced, it follows that, " he acted 
agreeable," " conformable," " suitable to nature," may plead 
in their favour these analogous phraseologies. I offer these 
observations, in order to show that, misled by abstract rea- 
sonings, or by the servile imitation of another language, we 
sometimes hastily condemn, as altogether inadmissible, modes 
of expression, which are not repugnant to our vernacular 
idiom. I would not, however, be understood to mean, that 
the adverb is not, in these cases, much to be preferred, when 
it can be employed consistently with good usage. For, if 
we say, " he acts agreeable to the laws of reason," the ques- 
tion is, who or what is agreeable ? the answer, according to 
the strict construction of the sentence, is he; but it is not he, 
but his mode of acting, of which the accordance is predi- 
cated ; agreeably is, therefore, the preferable term. 

I observe also, that, wherever the adjective is employed to 
modify the meaning of another adjective, it becomes particu- 
larly exceptionable, and can scarcely, indeed, plead aught in 
its favour, as, "indifferent good," " tolerable strong," instead 
of " indifferently good," and " tolerably strong." The fol- 
lowing phraseology is extremely inelegant, and is scarcely 
admissible on any principle of analogy : " Immediately con- 
sequent to the victory, Drogheda was invested." — Belshams 
History. What was consequent? Grammatically " Drogheda." 
" No other person, besides my brother, visited me to-day." 
Here the speaker means to say that no person, besides his 
brother, visited him to-day ; but his expression implies two 
exceptions from none, the terms other and besides each imply- 
ing one, and can, therefore, be correct on this supposition 
only, that some one besides his brother had visited him. It 
should be rather, "no person besides." 

" The old man had, some fifty years ago, been no mean 
performer on the vielle." — Sterne. This phraseology appears 
to me very objectionable ; and can be proper in no case, ex- 
cept when the date of the period is to be expressed as uncer- 
tain. The word some should be cancelled. We may say, " I 
was absent some days," because the period is indefinite ; but 
to say, " I was absent some five days," either involves an 
incongruity, representing a period as at once definite and 



254 CRITICAL REMARKS 

indefinite ; or denotes " some five days or other," a meaning 
which the expression is rarely intended to signify. 

" Brutus and Aruns killed one another." It should be, 
" each other:" "one another" is applied to more than two. 
" The one the other" would be correct, though inelegant. 

" It argued the most extreme vanity." — Hume. Extreme 
is derived from a Latin superlative, and denotes " the 
farthest," or " greatest possible : " it cannot, therefore, be 
compared. 

" Of all vices pride is the most universal." Universal is 
here improperly used for general. The meaning of the latter 
admits intension and remission, and may, therefore, be com- 
pared. The former is an adjective, whose signification can- 
not be heightened or lessened ; it therefore rejects all inten- 
sive and diminutive words, as, so, more, less, least, most. 
The expression should be, " Of all vices pride is the most 
general." 

"Tho' learn'd, well-bred; and tho* well-bred, sincere: 
Modestly bold, and humanly severe." — Pope. 

Human and humane, as Dr. Campbell observes, are some- 
times confounded. The former properly means " belonging 
toman;" the latter, "kind and compassionate:" humanly, 
therefore, is improperly, in the couplet now quoted, used for 
humanely. 

SECTION III. 

THE PRONOUN. 

BARBARISM. 

Pronouns are so few in number, and so simple, that this 
species of error, in respect to them, can scarcely occur. To 
this class, however, may perhaps be reduced such as, his^n, 
hern, ourn, yourn, their n, for his own, her own, our own, 
&c, or for his one, her one, &c. 

SOLECISM. 

"Who calls?" "'Tisme." This is a violation of that rule, 
by which the verb to be has the same case after it that it has 
before it. It should be, " It is I." 

" You were the quarrel," says Petulant in " The Way of 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 255 

the World." Millamant answers, " Me ! " For the reason 
just given it should be " I" 

u Spare thou them, O God, which confess their faults." 
As the relative refers to persons, it should be who. 

" Nor is mankind so much to blame, in his choice thus de- 
termining him." — Swift. Mankind is a collective noun, and 
is uniformly considered as plural ; his, therefore, is a gross 
solecism. 

" By this institution, each legion, to whom a certain portion 
of auxiliaries was allotted, contained within itself every 
species of lighter troops, and of missile weapons." — Gibbon. 
It ought to be, to which — the pronoun itself, which follows, 
referring to a noun of the neuter gender. To whom and 
itself cannot each agree with one common antecedent. 

" The seeming importance given to every part of female 
dress, each of which is committed to the care of a different 
sylph." — Essay on the Writings of Pope. This sentence is 
ungrammatical. Each implying " one of two," or " every 
one singly of more than two," requires the correlative to be 
considered as plural ; yet the antecedent part, to which it 
refers, is singular. It should be " all parts of female dress." 

" To be sold, the stock of Mr. Smith, left off business." 
This is an ungrammatical and very offensive vulgarism. The 
verb left off, as Baker observes, has no subject, to which it 
can grammatically belong. It should be, " who has left off," 
or "leaving off business." " A. B. lieutenant, vice C. D. re- 
signed." Here is a similar error. Is CD. resigned ? or is 
it the office which has been resigned ? An excessive love 
of brevity gives occasion to such solecisms. 

" He was ignorant, the profane historian, of the testimony 
which he is compelled to give." — Gibbon's Decline of the 
Roman Empire. 

" The youth and inexperience of the prince, he was only 
fifteen years of age, declined a perilous encounter." — lb. 

In the former sentence the historian appears neither as the 
nominative, nor the regimen to any verb. If it be intended 
to agree with he by apposition, it should have immediately 
followed the pronoun. If it be designed emphatically, and 
ironically, to mark the character of the historian, it should 



256 CRITICAL REMARKS 

have been thrown into the form of a parenthetic exclamation. 
In the latter sentence a phraseology occurs, which, notwith- 
standing its frequency in Gibbon, is extremely awkward and 
inelegant. The fault may be corrected either by throwing 
the age of the prince into a parenthesis, or, preferably, by the 
substitution of who for he. 

" Fare thee well" is a phraseology which, though sanc- 
tioned by the authority of a celebrated poet, and also by 
other writers, involves a solecism. The verb is intransitive, 
and its imperative is fare thou. No one would say, " I fare 
me well," " we fare us well." 

" That faction in England, who most powerfully opposed 
his arbitrary pretensions." — Mrs. Macaulay. It ought rather 
to be, " that faction in England, which." It is justly observed 
by Priestley, " that a term, which only implies the idea of 
persons, and expresses them by some circumstance or epithet, 
will hardly authorize the use of who." 

" He was certainly one of the most acute metaphysicians, 
one of the deepest philosophers, and one of the best critics, 
and most learned divines, which modern times have pro- 
duced." — KeWi on the Life and Writings of Campbell. 

" Moses was the mildest of all men, which were then on 
the face of the earth." — Geddes. 

" Lord Sidney was one of the wisest and most active 
governors, whom Ireland had enjoyed for several years." — 
Hume. 

In the two first of these passages, which is improperly ap- 
plied to persons ; in the last, the author has avoided this im- 
propriety, and used whom. The pronoun that, however, is 
much preferable to who, or which, after a superlative. 

" Such of the Morescoes might remain, who demeaned 
themselves as Christians." — Watsons Life of Philip LIL. 
Such is here improperly followed by who instead of as. The 
correlative terms are those who, and such as. 

" It is hard to be conceived, that a set of men could ever 
be chosen by their contemporaries, to have divine honours 
paid to them, while numerous persons were alive, who knew 
their imperfections, and who themselves, or their immediate 
ancestors, might have as fair a pretence, and come in com- 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 257 

petition with them." — Prideaux's Connexion. The identity 
of subject, in the relative clauses of this sentence, requires 
the repetition of the same pronoun. It should be, " who 
themselves, or whose immediate ancestors." 

" If you were here, you would find three or four in the 
parlour, after dinner, whom you would say past their after- 
noons very agreeably." — Swift. The pronoun whom should 
not be under the government of the verb would say, having 
no connection with it; but should be a nominative to the 
verb passed ; thus, " who, you would say, passed their after- 
noons." 

"By these means, that religious princess became ac- 
quainted with Athenias, whom she found was the most ac- 
complished woman of her age." Whom, for the reason 
already assigned, should be who, being the nominative to the 
verb was. If it were intended to be a regimen to the verb 
found, the sentence should proceed thus, " whom she found 
'to be." 

" Solomon was the wisest man, him only excepted, who 
was much greater and wiser than Solomon." In English the 
absolute case is the nominative ; it should, therefore, be, 
" he only excepted." 

" Who, instead of being useful members of society, they 
are pests to mankind." Here the verb are has two nomi- 
natives, who and they, each representing the same subjects 
of discourse. One of them is redundant ; and by the use of 
both, the expression becomes solecistical, there being no verb 
to which the relative who can be a nominative. 

" My banks, they are furnish'd with bees," 

is faulty for the same reason, though here, perhaps, the poetic 
licence may be pleaded in excuse. 

" It is against the laws of the realm,- which, as they are 
preserved and maintained by your majesty's authority, so we 
assure ourselves, you will not suffer them to be violated." 
Which is neither a regimen nor a nominative to any verb ; 
the sentence, therefore, is ungrammatical — Them is redundant. 

" Whom do men say that I am ?" The relative is here in 
the objective case, though there be no word in the sentence 

s 



258 CRITICAL REMARKS 

by which it can be governed. In such inverted sentences, it 
is a good rule for those who are not well acquainted with 
the language to arrange the words in the natural order, be- 
ginning with the nominative and the verbs, thus, " men say, 
that I am who," a sentence precisely analogous to " men say, 
that I am he," the verb requiring the same case after it, as 
before it. Hence it is obvious, that it should be, " Who do 
men say that I am ?" 

" Who do you speak to ?" It ought to be whom, the 
relative being under the government of the preposition, thus, 
" To whom do you speak ? " 

" Who she knew to be dead."— Henry's Hist, of Britain. 
Here also the relative should be in the objective case, under 
the government of the verb, thus, " whom she knew," or 
" she knew whom to be dead." 

" Than whom, Satan except, none higher sat." — Milton. 
" The king of dykes, than whom no sluice of mud, 
With deeper sable blots the silver flood." — Pope. 

This phraseology I have already examined. In answer to 
Mr. Baker's reason for condemning the phrase " than whom," 
Story's observations betray, as I conceive, extreme ignorance, 
and require correction. " The English," says he, " is strictly 
good ; for the relative whom is not in the same case with 
sluice, (which is the nominative to the verb blots,) but refer- 
ring to its antecedent, the king of dykes, is very properly 
in the objective case, even though the personal pronoun he, 
if substituted in its place, would be in the nominative." 

If Mr. Story conceives that the relative must agree with 
its antecedent in case, he labours under an egregious mistake. 
Every page of English evinces the contrary. Yet, such 
must be his opinion, or his argument means nothing ; for the 
only reason, which he offers for whom, is, that its antecedent 
is in the objective case. Besides, if than whom be admis- 
sible, nay proper, he will have difficulty in assigning a good 
reason, why it should not be also than him. But Mr. Story 
should have known, that, when two nouns are coupled by a 
conjunction, the latter term is not governed by the con- 
junction, but is either the nominative to the verb, or is 
governed by it, or by the ^preposition understood. The 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 259 

sentence proceeds thus, " no sluice of mud blots with deeper 
sable, than he or who blots." 

- It is no wonder if such a man did not shine at the court 
of Queen Elizabeth, who was but another name for prudence 
and economy." — Hume. The word Elizabeth, as represent- 
ed in the latter clause, is here a mere word, nuclei vox, and 
not the sign of a person ; for it is said to be another name 
for prudence and economy. Not the person, but the word, is 
said to be significant of this quality. The pronoun, there- 
fore, should be which, not who. The sentence, however, 
even thus corrected, would be inelegant. Better thus, 
" Queen Elizabeth, whose name was but another word for 
prudence and economy." 

" Be not diverted from thy duty by any idle reflections the 
silly world may make upon you." Consistency requires 
either " your duty," or " upon thee.'''' Thy and your, a singular 
and a plural pronoun, each addressed to the same individual, 
are incongruous. 

A similar error occurs in the following passage : " I pray 
you, tarry all night, lodge here, that thy heart may be merry." 
— Bible. 

" It is more good to fall among crows than flatterers, for 
these only devour the dead, those the living." The pronoun 
this always refers to the nearer object, that to the more re- 
mote. This distinction is here reversed. It should be, 
" those (crows) devour the dead ; these (flatterers) the living." 
I observe also, in passing, that those adjectives, whose mode 
of comparison is irregular, are not compared by more and 
most. It ought to be, " it is better." 

" It is surprising, that this people, so happy in invention, 
have never penetrated beyond the elements of geometry." 
It should be has, this people being in the singular number. 
We may say, " people have," the noun being collective, but 
not " this people have." 

" I and you love reading." This is a Latinism, and not 
accordant with our mode of arrangement. Wolsey was right, 
when he said, " Ego, et rexmeus;" but in English we re- 
verse the order. It should be, " you and I." We say also, 
"he and I," " they and I." You always precedes. 

s 2 



260 CRITICAL REMARKS 

" Each of the sexes should keep within its proper bounds, 
and content themselves with the advantages of their par- 
ticular districts." — Addison. Here the pronoun does not 
agree with the word to which it refers, the word each being 
singular ; whereas themselves and their are plural. It should 
be, itself and its. 

A similar error occurs in the following sentence : " Some of 
our principal public schools have each a grammar of their 
own." — Barrow on Education. It ought to be, " each a 
grammar of its own." The expression is elliptical, for 
" schools have each (has) a grammar of its own." Thus we 
say, " Simeon and Levi took each man his sword" not their 
swords. — Gen. xxxiv. 25. 

" Let each esteem other better than themselves." — Bible. 
For the reason just given, it ought to be himself. 

" So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, 
if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their 
trespasses." — Bible. Here is a manifest solecism, the pro- 
noun their referring to "his brother," a singular subject. 

" I wonder that such a valiant hero as you should trifle 
away your time in making war upon women." — Essay on the 
Writings of Pope. Here the pronoun disagrees in person 
with the noun to which it refers, hero being of the third 
person, and your of the second. The connexion is, " I 
wonder that such a valiant hero should trifle away his 
time." 

" The venison, which I received yesterday, and was a 
present from a friend," &c. Which is here in the objec- 
tive case, and cannot properly be understood as the nomina- 
tive to the verb was : better, therefore, " and which was a 
present." The following sentence is still more faulty : " It 
was happy for them, that the storm, in which they were, and 
was so very severe, lasted but a short time." This is un- 
grammatical, the verb " was " having no nominative. It 
should be, " which was." 

" There is not a sovereign state in Europe, but keeps a 
body of regular troops in their pay." This expression, to say 
the least of it, is inelegant and awkward. Better, "its pay." 
" Is any nation sensible of the lowness of their own manners ?" 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 261 

— Karnes. Nation is here improperly construed as both sin- 
gular and plural. It should be rather " its own." 

" The treaty he concluded can only be considered as a tem- 
porary submission, and of which he took no care to secure 
the continuance of it." — Dryden. The redundancy of the 
words of it, renders the sentence somewhat un grammatical. 
It should run thus, " The treaty he concluded can only be 
considered as a temporary submission, of which he took no 
care to secure the continuance." 

An improper reference occurs in the following sentence : 
" Unless one be very cautious, he will be liable to be de- 
ceived." One here answers to the indefinite word on in 
French, and cannot be represented by any pronoun. It must, 
therefore, be repeated, thus, " Unless one be very cautious, 
one will be liable to be deceived." 

IMPROPRIETY. 

" Give me them books." Here the substantive pronoun is 
used adjectively, instead of the demonstrative those or these. 
The substantive pronouns, which are, strictly speaking, the 
only pronouns, cannot be construed as adjectives agreeing with 
substantives. We cannot say, " it book," " they books," " them 
books:" but "this" or "that book," " these" or "those books." 
The former phraseology may be deemed solecistical. 

"Great numbers were killed on either side." — Watson's 
Philip III. " The Nile flows down the country above five 
hundred miles from the tropic of Cancer, and marks on either 
side the extent of fertility by the measure of its inundation." 
— Gibbon. 

It has been already observed, that the Saxon word cegther 
signifies each, as Gen. vii. 2. " Clean animals thou shalt take 
by sevens of each kind," (Bgthres gecyndes. The English word 
either is sometimes used in the same sense. But as this is 
the only word in our language, by which we can express 
" one of two," " which of the two you please," and as it is 
generally employed in that sense, perspicuity requires that it 
be strictly confined to this signification. For, if either be 
used equivocally, it must, in many cases, be utterly impossible 
for human ingenuity to ascertain, whether only " one of two," 
or " both," be intended. In such expressions, for example. 



262 CRITICAL REMARKS 

as " take either side," " the general ordered his troops to 
march on either bank," how is the reader or hearer to divine, 
whether both sides, both banks, or only one, be signified ? 
By employing each to express " both," taken individually, and 
either to denote " one of the two," all ambiguity is removed. 

" The Bishop of Clogher intends to call on you this morn- 
ing, as well as your humble servant, in my return from Chapel 
Izzard." — Addison to Swift. After the writer has spoken of 
himself in the third person, there is an impropriety in employ- 
ing the pronoun of the first. Much better " in his return." 

" The ends of a divine and human legislator are vastly dif- 
ferent." — Warburton. From this sentence it would seem, 
that there is only one subject of discourse, the ends belong- 
ing to one individual, a divine and human legislator. The 
author intended to express two different subjects, namely, 
"the objects of a divine," and "the objects of a human le- 
gislator." The demonstrative those is omitted. It should be, 
" the ends of a divine, and those of a human legislator, are 
vastly different." This error consists in defect, or an impro- 
per ellipsis of the pronoun : in the following sentence the 
error is redundancy. " They both met on a trial of skill." 
Both means " they two," as ambo in Latin is equivalent to " ol 
duo." It should therefore be, " both met on a trial of skill." 

" These two men (A and B) are both equal in strength." 
This, says Baker, is nonsense ; for these words signify only, 
that A is equal in strength, and B equal in strength, without 
implying to whom ; so that the word equal has nothing to 
which it refers. " A and B," says he, " are equal in strength," 
is sense ; this means, that they are equal to each other. " A 
and B are both equal in strength to C," is likewise sense. It 
signifies, that A is equal to C, and that B likewise is equal 
to C. Thus Mr. Baker. Now, it appears to me, that, when 
he admits the expression, " are both equal," as significant of 
the equality of each, he admits a phraseology which does not 
strictly convey that idea. For if we say, " A and B are both 
equal," it seems to me to imply, that the two individuals are 
possessed of two attributes or qualities, one of which is here 
expressed ; and in this sense only, as I conceive, is this 
phraseology correct. Thus we may say, with strict pro- 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 263 

priety, " A and B are both equal in strength, and superior in 
judgment to their contemporaries," Or it may denote, that 
"they two together, namely, A and B, are equal to C singly." 
In the former case, both is necessarily followed by and, which 
is in Latin rendered by et. Thus, " A and B are the two things, 
(both) equal in strength, and (add) superior in judgment to 
their contemporaries." In the latter case, it is equivalent to 
ambo, expressing two collectively, as, " they two together are 
equal to C, but not separately."'' I am aware, that the word 
both in English, like ambo in Latin, is an ambiguous term, de- 
noting either " the two collectively," or " the two separately," 
and that many examples of the ]atter usage may be ad- 
duced. But that surely cannot be deemed a correct or appro- 
priate term, which, in its strict signification, conveys an idea 
different from that intended by the speaker ; or which leaves 
the sentiment in obscurity, and the reader in doubt. The word 
each, substituted for both, renders the expression clear and 
precise, thus, " A and B are each equal to C, in strength." 21 

An error the reverse of this occurs in the following sen- 
tence : " This proves, that the date of each letter must have 
been nearly coincident." Coincident with what? Not surely 
with itself; nor can the date of each letter be coincident with 
each other. It should be, " that the dates of both letters 
must have been nearly coincident with each other." 

" It's great cruelty to torture a poor dumb animal." Bet- 
ter, 'Tis, in order to distinguish the contraction from the ge- 
nitive singular of the pronoun it. 

"Neither Lady Haversham, nor Miss Mildmay, will ever 
believe but what I have been entirely to blame." The pro- 
noun what, equivalent to that which, is here improperly used 
for that. This mode of expression still obtains among the 
lower orders of the people, and is not confined to them in the 
northern parts of the island. It should be, " that I have been." 
The converse of this error occurs in the following passages : 

" That all our doings may be ordered by thy governance, 

a " Utrumque fecisse, dicimus, si et hie et ille fecerit divisim ; ambos 
fecisse dicimus, si duo conjunctim aliquid fecerint." — Stephan. This 
distinction, however, as the learned critic acknowledges, is not uniformly 
observed. 



264 CRITICAL REMARKS 

to do always that is righteous in thy sight." — Book of Com- 
mon Prayer. 

" For, if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted, ac- 
cording to that a man hath." — Bible. 

The pronouns it and that were formerly used as including 
the relative. "This submission is it iraplieth them all." 
" This is it men mean by distributive justice." — HobbeS. " To 
consider advisedly of that is moved." — Bacon. This usage is 
now obsolete. The clauses should therefore proceed thus, 
" to do always what," or " that, which is righteous." " Ac- 
cording to what," or " that, which a man hath." 



SECTION IV. 

THE VERB. 

BARBARISM. 

" Thus did the French ambassadors, with great show of 
their king's affection, and many sugared words, seek to ad- 
dulce all matters between the two kings." — Bacon. The 
verb "to addulce" is obsolete. 

" Do villany, do ; since you profess to 
Like workmen, I'll example you with thievery." 

Shakspeare. 

The verb " to example," as equivalent to the phrase " to 
set an example," is obsolete ; and when used for " to exem- 
plify," may be deemed obsolescent. " The proof whereof," 
says Spencer in his State of Ireland, " I saw sufficiently 
exampled;" better " exemplified." 

" I called at noon at Mrs, Masham's, who desired me not 
to let the prophecy be published, for fear of angering the 
queen." — Swift. The verb " to anger" is almost obsolete. 
In Scotland, and in the northern part of England, it is still 
colloquially used ; but in written language, of respectable 
authority, it now rarely occurs. I have met with it once or 
twice in Swift or Pope ; since their time it appears to have 
been gradually falling into disuse. 

" Shall we once more go to fight against our brethren, or 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 265 

shall we surcease?" — Geddes's Transl. The verb to " sur- 
cease" is obsolete. 

" And they and he, upon this incorporation and institution, 
and onyng of themself into a realme, ordaynyd," &c. — For- 
tescue. Here we have the participle of the verb " to one," 
now obsolete, for " to unite." 

" For it is no power to may alien, and put away ; but it 
is a power to may have, and kepe to himself. So it is no 
power to may syne, and to do ill, or to may be syke, or wex 
old, or that a man may hurt himself; for all thees powers 
comyne of impotencye." — lb. It has been already observed, 
that the verb may is derived from the Saxon msegan, posse. — 
See p. 97. From the passage before us it appears, that in 
the time of Fortescue (anno .1440) the infinitive " to may," 
for " to be able," was in use. It has now been long obsolete. 
In the following passage, it forms what is called a compound 
tense with the word shall, the sign of the infinitive being- 
suppressed. " Wherthorough the parlements schall may do 
more good in a moneth." — lb. That is, " shall be able to do." 

" Wherefor al, that he dothe oicith to be referryed to his 
kingdom." — lb. The verb to owe, as expressive of duty, is 
now obsolete. It has been supplanted by ought, formerly its 
preterite tense, and now used as a present. We should now 
say, " ought to be referred." 

" Both these articles were unquestionably true, and could 
easily have been proven." — Henry's History of Britain. 
" Admitting the charges against the delinquents to be fully 
proven." — Belsharn's History. Proven is now obsolete, hav- 
ing given place to the regular participle. It is still, how- 
ever, used in Scotland, and is therefore deemed a Scotticism. 

" Methoughts I returned to the great hall, where I had 
been the morning before." Methoughts is barbarous, and 
also violates analogy, the third person being thought, and 
not thoughts. 

SOLECISM. 

" You was busy, when I called." Here a pronoun plural 
is joined with a verb in the singular number. It should be, 
"you were." 

" The keeping good company, even the best, is but a less 



266 CRITICAL REMARKS 

shameful art of losing time. What we here call science and 
study are little better." What is equivalent to that which. 
It should be is, and not are; thus, "that, which we call . . . 
is little better." 

" Three times three is nine," and " three times three are 
nine," are modes of expression in common use ; and it has 
become a question, which is the more correct. The Romans 
admitted both phraseologies. " Quinquies et vicies duceni 
quadrageni singuli jiunt sex millia et viginti quinque." — 
Colum. Here the distributive numerals are the nominatives 
to the verb. " Ubi est septies millies sestertium." — Cic. 
Here the adverbial numerals make the nominative, and the 
verb is singular. Plurality being evidently implied, the 
plural verb seems more consonant with our natural concep- 
tion of numbers, as well as with the idiom of our language. 

" This is one of those highwaymen, that was condemned 
last sessions." According to the grammatical construction 
of this sentence, " one of those highwaymen " is the pre- 
dicate; for the syntactical arrangement is, " This (highway- 
man), that was condemned last sessions, is one of those 
highwaymen." But this is not the meaning which this sen- 
tence is in general intended to convey: for it is usually 
employed to denote, that several highwaymen were con- 
demned, and that this is one of them. The sentence, therefore, 
thus understood, is un grammatical ; for the antecedent is, in 
this case, not one, but highwaymen. The relative, therefore, 
being plural, should be joined with a plural verb, thus, " This 
is one of those highwaymen, that were condemned last 
sessions." 

"I had went to Lisbon, before you knew that I had 
arrived in England." This is an egregious solecism, the 
auxiliary verb had, which requires the perfect participle, 
being here joined with the preterite tense. It should be, " I 
had gone." 

" He would not fall the trees this season." The verb "to 
fall " is intransitive, and cannot therefore be followed by an 
objective case, denoting a thing acted upon. It should be, 
" he would not fell." 

" Let him know, that I shall be over in spring, and that 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 267 

by all means he sells the horses." — Swift. Here we have in 
the latter clause a thing expressed as done or doing, for a 
thing commanded. It should be, " that he should sell 5" or 
elliptically, " that he sell." 

" It is very probable that neither of these are the meaning 
of the text." Neither, means, " not the one, nor the other," 
denoting the exclusion of each of two things. It should, 
therefore, be, " neither is the meaning of the text." 

" He was a man, whose vices were very great, and had the 
art to conceal them from the eyes of the public." According 
to the grammatical construction of this sentence, vices un- 
derstood is the nominative to the verb had; thus, " whose 
vices were very great, and whose vices had the art to conceal 
them." It should be, a and who had the art to conceal them." 

" At the foot of this hill was soon built such a number of 
houses, that amounted to a considerable city." Here the 
verb amounted has no nominative. To render the sentence 
grammatical, it should be, " that they amounted," or " as 
amounted to a considerable city." 

" It requires more logic than you possess, to make a man 
to believe that prodigality is not a vice." After the verb " to 
make," the sign of the infinitive should be omitted. See 
Rule xv. note 3. 

" He dare not," "he need not," may be justly pronounced 
solecisms, for " he dares," " he needs." 

"How do your pulse beat?" Pulse is a noun singular, 
and is here ungrammatically joined with a verb plural. It 
should be, " how does your pulse beat ? " 

" The river had overflown its banks." Overflown is the 
participle of the verb to fly, compounded with over. It 
should be " overflowed," the participle of " overflow." 

" They that sin rebuke before all." The pronoun, which 
should be the regimen of the verb rebuke, is here put in the 
nominative case. It should, therefore, be them. The natu- 
ral order is, " rebuke them, that sin." 

" There are principles innate in man, which ever have, and 
ever will incline him to this offence." If the ellipsis be sup- 
plied, the sentence will be found to be ungrammatical ; thus 
" which ever have incline, and ever will incline." It should 
be, "which ever have inclined, and ever will incline." 



268 CRITICAL REMARKS 

" Nor is it easy to conceive that in substituting the manners 
of Persia to those of Rome, he was actuated by vanity." — 
Gibbon. " Substitute £0," is a Latinism. It should be, 
" substitute for? 

" I had rather live in forty Irelands, than under the fre- 
quent disquiets of hearing, that you are out of order." — 
Swiff s Letters. " You had better return home without de- 
lay." In both these examples would is far preferable, thus, 
" I would rather live," " you would better return," or " you 
would do better to return." 

" That he had much rather be no king at all, than have 
heretics for his subjects." — Watson s Philip III. Here is 
involved the same error. It should be, "he would." 

" The nobility of England consisted only of one duke, four 
earls, one viscount, and twenty-nine barons, all the nobles of 
the Lancastrian party having been either killed in battles, or 
on scaffolds, or had fled into foreign parts." — Henry's 
History. This sentence is ungrammatical. The word nobles 
joined to the participle having must be regarded as put abso- 
lutely, and therefore to the verb had there is strictly no nomi- 
native. But, even were a nominative introduced, the struc- 
ture of the sentence would be still highly objectionable, the 
two last clauses, " having been killed," and " they had fled," 
being utterly discordant one with the other. The primary 
idea to be expressed is the fewness of the nobility; this forms 
the subject of the principal clause. There are two reasons 
to be assigned for this fewness, their destruction and their 
flight; these form the subjects of the two subordinate clauses. 
Between these two, therefore, there should be the strictest 
congruity; and in this respect the sentence is faulty. It 
ought to proceed either thus, " The nobility of England con- 
sisted only of one duke, four earls, one viscount, and twenty- 
nine barons ; for all the nobles of the Lancastrian party had 
either been killed in battles, or on scaffolds, or had fled into 
foreign parts;" or thus, " all the nobles having been killed, 
or having fled." The latter is the preferable form. 

" He neglected to profit of this occurrence." This phrase- 
ology occurs frequently in Hume. " To profit of," is a Galli- 
cism ; it ought to be, " to profit by this occurrence." 

" The people of England may congratulate to themselves, 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 269 

that the nature of our government and the clemency of our 
king, secure us." — Dry den. " Congratulate to," is a Latin- 
ism. The person congratulated should be in the objective 
case governed by the verb ; the subject is preceded by the 
preposition on, as, " I congratulate you on your arrival." 

" You will arrive to London before the coach." 

" A priest newly arrived to the north-west parts of Ire- 
land." — Swift's Sacr. Test. 

In these examples the verb " to arrive," is followed by to, 
instead ^of at, an error which should be carefully avoided. 
Good writers never construe it with the preposition signifi- 
cant of motion. or progression concluded, but with those pre- 
positions which denote propinquity or inclusion, namely, at 
or in. Hence also to join this verb with adverbs, expressive 
of motion to, or towards a place, is improper. We should 
say, " he arrived here, there, where" not — " hither, thither, 
whither.'''' 

" Elizabeth was not unconcerned ; she remonstrated to 
James." — Andrew's Continuation of Henry s History. This 
is incorrect. We remonstrate with and not to a person, and 
against a thing. 

" I am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth 
forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth the earth abroad by 
myself." According to the structure of the second and third 
clauses of this sentence, the Lord is the antecedent to that, 
which is, therefore, properly joined with the third person of 
the verbs following, "maketh," "spreadeth;" but the pro- 
noun of the first person, myself, in the last clause, does not 
accord with this structure ; for as we cannot say, " he spreadeth 
the earth by myself," there being only one agent implied, and 
where he and myself are supposed to allude to one person, 
so we cannot say, " that (Lord) spreadeth the earth by my- 
self," but " by himself," an identity of person being indis- 
pensably requisite. The sentence, therefore, should conclude 
thus, " that spreadeth abroad the earth by himself." If my- 
self be retained, the pronoun / must be considered as the 
antecedent, and the sentence will then run thus: " I am the 
Lord, that make all things, that stretch forth the heavens 
alone, that spread abroad the earth by myself." 



270 CRITICAL REMARKS 

" Thou great First Cause, least understood, 
Who all my sense confin'd 
To know but this, that thou art good, 
And that myself am blind." — Pope. 

The antecedent to the pronoun who is the pronoun of the 
second person singular. The relative, therefore, being of the 
same person, should be joined to the second person singular 
of the verb, namely, " confinedst." 

" The executive directory, to prove that they will not re- 
ject any means of reconciliation, declares," &c. — BelshanCs 
Hist. The nominative is here joined to a verb singular, and 
at the same time represented by a pronoun plural. The error 
may be corrected either by the substitution of it for they y or 
declare instead of declares. 

" These friendly admonitions of Swift, though they might 
sometimes produce good effects, in particular cases, when 
properly timed, yet could they do but little towards eradicat- 
ing faults ." — Sheridan. The nominative admonitions is con- 
nected with no verb, the pronoun they being the nominative 
to the verb could. The sentence, therefore, is ungrammati- 
cal; nor can the figure hyperbaton be here pleaded in excuse, 
as the simplicity and shortness of the sentence render it un- 
necessary. They in the third clause should be suppressed. 

" This dedication may serve for almost any book, that has, 
is, or shall be published." — Bolingbroke. Has being merely 
a part of a compound tense, conveys no precise meaning 
without the rest of the tense. When joined, then, to the par- 
ticiple, here belonging to the three auxiliaries, the sentence 
proceeds thus, " This dedication may serve for almost any 
book, that has published." It ought to be " has been, is, 
or shall be published." The following sentence is charge- 
able with an error of the same kind. 

" This part of knowledge has been always growing, and will 
do so, till the subject be exhausted." Do what? The auxi- 
liary cannot refer to been, for the substantive verb, or verb 
of existence, does not imply action, nor can we say, " do 
growing." It ought to be, " has been growing, and will still 
be so." 

" All that can be now urged, is the reason of the thing, and 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 271 

this I shall do." — Warburton. Here is a similar incongruity. 
He should have said, " and this shall be done." 

Some of the preceding errors, with those which follow 
under this head, may be denominated rather inaccuracies, 
than solecisms. 

" 'T was twenty years and more, that I have known him," 
says Pope to Gay, speaking of Congreve's death. It ought 
to be, " It is twenty years and more," the period conclud- 
ing with the present time, or the time then present. He 
might have said, " It is now twenty years," where the adverb 
now, being obviously admissible, points to present time, and 
necessarily excludes the preterite tense. Pope says, " 'T was 
twenty years." When ? not surely in some part of the past 
time, but at the time of writing. 

"It were well for the insurgents, and fortunate for the king, 
if the blood, that was now shed, had been thought a suffi- 
cient expiation for the offence." — Goldsmith. " It were," 
which is equivalent to " it would be," is evidently incon- 
gruous with the following tense, " had been thought." It 
ought to be, as he was speaking of past time, " it would have 
been," or, " it had been, well for the insurgents." 

" Was man like his Creator in wisdom and goodness, I 
should be for allowing this great model." — Addison. This 
form of expression cannot be pronounced entirely repugnant 
to analogy, the preterite of the auxiliary "to have" being- 
used in a similar sense. But the verb "to be" having a 
mood appropriate to the expression of conditionally, the 
author should have said, " Were man like his Creator." 

" If you please to employ your thoughts on that subject, 
you would easily conceive the miserable condition many of 
us are in." — Steele. Here there is obviously an incongruity 
of tense. It should be either, " if you please to employ, you 
will conceive," or " if it pleased you to employ, you would 
conceive." 

" James used to compare him to a cat, who always fell 
upon her legs." — Adams Hist, of England. Here the latter 
clause, which is intended to predicate an attribute of the spe- 
cies, expresses simply a particular fact ; in other words, what 
is intended to be signified as equally true of all, is here limited 



272 CRITICAL REMARKS 

to one of the kind. It should be, " always falls upon her 
legs." 

" This is the last time I shall ever go to London." This 
mode of expression, though very common, is certainly im- 
proper after the person is gone, and can be proper only 
before he sets out. The French speak correctly when they 
say, "la derniere fois que je vais," i.e. the last time of my 
going. We ought to say, " this is the last time I shall be in 
London." 

" He accordingly draws out his forces, and offers battle to 
Hiero, who immediately accepted it." Consistency requires, 
that the last verb be in the same tense with the preceding 
verbs. The actions are described as present ; the language 
is graphical, and that which has been properly enough de- 
nominated the " historical tense" should not be employed. 
It ought to be, " who immediately accepts it." 

" I have lost this game, though I thought I should have 
icon it." It ought to be, " though I thought I should win 
it." This is an error of the same kind, as, " I expected to 
have seen you." " I intended to have written." The prete- 
rite time is expressed by the tenses " expected," "intended;" 
and, how far back soever that expectation or intention may 
be referred, the seeing or writing must be considered as 
contemporary, or as soon to follow; but cannot, without 
absurdity, be considered as anterior. It should be, " I ex- 
pected to see," " I intended to write." Priestley, in defend- 
ing the other phraseology, appears to me to have greatly 
erred, the expression implying a manifest impossibility. The 
action, represented as the object of an expectation or inten- 
tion, and therefore, in respect to these, necessarily future, 
cannot surely, without gross absurdity, be exhibited as past, 
or antecedent to these. In the following passage the error 
seems altogether indefensible. " The most uncultivated Asia- 
tics discover that sensibility, which, from their situation on 
the globe, we should expect them to have felt." — Robertsons 
History of America. The author expresses himself, as if he 
referred to a past sensation, while the introductory verb 
shows that he alludes to a general fact. The incongruity is 
obvious. He should have said, " expect them to feel." 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 273 

" Fierce as he moved, his silver shafts resound." — Pope. 
Much better, " Fierce as he moves." Congmity of tense is 
thus preserved ; and there is, besides, a peculiar beauty in 
employing the present, — a beauty, of which the preterite is 
wholly incapable. The former imparts vivacity to the ex- 
pression ; it presents the action, with graphical effect, to the 
mind of the reader ; and thus, by rendering him a spectator 
of the scene, impresses the imagination, and rouses the feel- 
ings with greater energy. Compared to the latter, it is like 
the pencil of the artist to the pen of the historian. 

" Jesus answering said unto him, What wilt thou, that I 
should do unto thee ? " The blind man said unto him : "Lord, 
that I might receive my sight." It ought to be, " that I may 
receive my sight," i~ will being understood; thus, "I will, 
that I may receive my sight," where the present wish, and the 
attainment of it, are properly represented as contemporary. 

" These things have I spoken unto you, that your joy might 
be full." Better, " that your joy may be full." 

" If an atheist would peruse the volume of nature, he would 
confess, that there was a God." Universal, or abstract truths, 
require the present tense ; it should be, "that there is a God." 

" impresses us with a feeling, as if refinement was no- 
thing, as if faculties were nothing, as if virtue was nothing, 
as if all that was sweetest, and all that was highest in human 
nature was an idle show." — Godwin' 's Life of Chaucer. This 
sentence errs at once against elegance and accuracy. The 
former offence may be partly corrected, by substituting the 
conditional for the indicative tense, in the hypothetical 
clauses. But the author's principal error consists in con- 
verting a general proposition into a particular fact, by repre- 
senting that as past which is always present and immutable. 
The sentence should proceed thus : " Impresses us with a 
feeling, as if refinement were nothing, as if faculties ivere 
nothing, as if virtue were nothing, as if all that is sweetest, 
and all that is highest in human nature, were an idle show." 

A similar error occurs in this passage: "He proceeded to 
demonstrate, that death was not an evil ; " and also in this, 
" I have frequently been assured by great ministers, that 
politics were nothing, but common sense." 

T 



274 CRITICAL REMARKS 

" Tom has wit enough to make him a pleasant companion, 
was it polished by good manners." As the latter clause is 
intended to be purely hypothetical, the verb should not be 
in the indicative mood. " Were it polished," is the proper 
expression. 

" He understood the language of Balnibarbi, although it 
were different from that of this island." — Swift's Voyage to 
Laputa. From the phraseology here employed, the reader 
might naturally infer, that the language of the island, and 
that of Balnibarbi, were identical; for a concessive term, as 
I have already said, when joined to what is called the con- 
junctive form of the verb, implies pure hypothesis, as con- 
trary to fact ; or, in other words, implies a negation of the 
attribute expressed. The author's intention was to signify, 
that the languages were not the same. He should, therefore, 
have said, " although it was different." 

" The circumstances were as follows." Several gramma- 
rians and critics have approved this phraseology ; I am in- 
clined, however, to concur with those, who prefer " as fol- 
low." To justify the former mode of expression, the verb 
must be considered as impersonal. This, I own, appears to 
me a very questionable solution of the difficulty ; for I am 
convinced, that we have no impersonal verbs in English, but 
such as are uniformly preceded by it. We frequently, indeed, 
meet with sentences, where verbs occur without a nominative, 
and in the singular number. These are, by some, considered 
as impersonal verbs, to which the nominative it is understood. 
I apprehend, however, that, on strict inquiry, some one or 
other of the preceding words, which are now considered as 
conjunctions, adverbs, or particles, was originally the nomi- 
native ; and that it is only since the primitive and real cha- 
racter of these words has been obliterated and lost, that we 
have found it necessary to inquire for another nominative. 
Thus, if the word as be equivalent to it, that, or which*, then 
it is obvious, that, when we say, " the circumstances were as 

a " The truth is, that as is also an article; and however and whenever 
used in English, means the same as it, or that, or which. In the German, 
where it still evidently retains its original signification and use, (as so also 
does,) it is written es" — Toohe's Diversions. 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 275 

folloivs" there is no real ellipsis of the nominative involved, 
nor, therefore, any ground for asserting the impersonality of 
the verb, in order to explain the syntax,- or construction of 
the phrase ; for the word as, equivalent to it, that, or which, 
is the true nominative. It is evident, then, that this solution 
of the difficulty must be rejected as false ; and that the argu- 
ment in favour of " as follows," resting on the supposed im- 
personality of the verb, and the suppression of the pronoun, 
is entirely unfounded. 

If a* then be the nominative to the verb, and be synonymous 
with it, that, or which, it is of importance to determine, whe- 
ther as be a singular, or a plural word ; or whether it be either 
the one, or the other. That it is construed as singular, there 
can be no doubt. We say, " his insensibility is such, as ex- 
cites our detestation." That it is also joined to a verb plural 
is equally certain, thus, "his manners are such, as are uni- 
versally pleasing." In the former example, such as is equi- 
valent to that which, and in the latter to those which. If as, 
then, be either singular or plural, and synonymous with it, 
that, or which, I conceive that, when it refers to a plural an- 
tecedent, it must, like which, be considered as plural, and 
joined to a plural verb. Now, it is surely more consonant 
with analogy to say, " the circumstances were, which follow," 
than it follows, or that follows. Besides, when the demon- 
strative such precedes, and is joined to a plural noun, it is 
universally admitted, that as must then be followed by a 
plural verb. If so, the construction of the word as cannot, I 
apprehend, be in the least degree affected by the ellipsis of 
the correlative term. Let us now hear those who adopt the 
contrary opinion. 

Baker prefers the verb singular, and remarks " that there 
are instances in our language of verbs in the third person 
without a nominative case, as, ' he censures her, so far as re- 
gards.' " In answer to this it may be observed, that, if the 
word as is to be considered in no other light, than as a con- 
junctive particle, it is certainly true, that the verb regards 
has no nominative. But I am persuaded, no person who has 
examined the theory of Mr. Tooke can entertain a doubt re- 
specting the original and real character of this word. Nay, 

t '2 



276 CRITICAL REMARKS 

if we investigate the true and primitive import of the corre- 
spondent Latin terms ut and uti, we shall find, that these, 
which are termed adverbs, are, in fact, the pronouns cm, br\ 
and that quod (anciently written quodde) is nothing else than 
xai orri, which, like our word that, is sometimes called a con- 
junction, and sometimes a pronoun. Why the original cha- 
racter and real import of the word as have been completely 
merged in the name of adverb, while the word that has been 
assigned the double character of pronoun and conjunction, it 
would be easy to show, if the discussion were essential to the 
question before us. But in answer to Baker's remark, it is 
sufficient to observe, that as means properly it, that, or which. 

Campbell adopts the opinion of Baker. " When a verb, 1 ' 
says he, " is used impersonally, it ought undoubtedly to be 
in the singular number, whether the neuter pronoun be ex- 
pressed or understood." But a question naturally arises, 
whence has the author learned that the verb is impersonal ? 
There appears to me to be no more impersonality in the verb, 
when we say, " it is as follows," than when we say, " it is 
such, as follows," or, " they are such, as follow." If as be 
admitted as the nominative in two of these examples, I can 
perceive no reason for rejecting it in the third. But here lies, 
as will presently appear, the author's great error. Unac- 
quainted with the true meaning of the word as, he conceived 
it as incapable of becoming a nominative to a verb, as ut or 
uti is deemed in Latin ; and he therefore immediately recurs 
to ellipsis. 

" For this reason" (that is, because the verb is impersonal), 
he proceeds to observe, " analogy as well as usage favour this 
mode of expression, The conditions of the agreement were as 
follows, and not as follow" 

How analogy favours this mode of expression, I am utterly 
at a loss to conceive. The general rule surely is, that to 
every verb there shall be a nominative, and that this nomina- 
tive shall be expressed, unless its presence in some preceding- 
clause shall render the repetition of it unnecessary. But how 
is it consonant with analogy, that no nominative shall appear ; 
or that the supposed nominative shall not be found in any 
part of the sentence ? This surely is repugnant to analogy. 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 277 

" A few late writers," he observes, " have inconsiderately 
adopted this last form (as follow) through a mistake of the 
construction." But, if the verb be not impersonal, the error 
is his, not theirs. I must observe, likewise, that from the 
manner in which the author expresses himself, one would 
naturally infer, that a few writers, either contemporary, or 
immediately preceding his own time, had inconsiderately in- 
troduced a solecism into our language. When he offered 
this observation, he surely was not aware that Steele and 
Addison, nearly seventy years before the publication of 
" The Philosophy of Rhetoric," used the plural form. " The 
most eminent of the kennel," says Steele, " are blood-hounds, 
which lead the van, and are as follow? — Tatler, No. 62. 
" The words were as follow" — Ibid. No. 104. " The words 
are as follow? — Addison, Spectator, No. 513. 

" For the same reason," continues he, still presuming the 
verb to be impersonal, " we ought to say, / shall consider 
his censures so far only, as concerns my friend's conduct, not 
concern. It is manifest," he observes, " that the word con- 
ditions in the first case, and censures in the second, cannot 
serve as nominatives." This observation demonstrates that 
the author's argument is founded in his ignorance of the real 
character of the word as. The most extraordinary part of 
his reasoning follows. " But," says he, " if we give either 
sentence another turn, and instead of as, say such as, the verb 
is no longer impersonal. The pronoun such is the nomina- 
tive, whose number is determined by its antecedent. Thus 
we must say, they were such as follow; such of his censures 
only as concern my friend." This is truly an extraordinary 
assertion. The antecedent correlative term such can have 
no connexion whatever with the subsequent verb, but must 
agree with the principal subject of discourse. Not only does 
analogy require this, but the usage of every language with 
which I am acquainted. If we say , Per severantia fail tanta, 
quantus erat furor. Is est, quern dicimus. Talis est, qualem 
esse creditis. Ilia erant conditiones, quae sequuntur, — the 
antecedent correlative terms tanta, is, talis, ilia, — have no 
connexion whatever with the verbs in the subsequent clause, 
erat, dicimus, creditis, sequuntur. The truth of this ob^ 



278 CRITICAL REMARKS 

servation must be sufficiently obvious to every classical 
scholar. 

But to illustrate the extreme inaccuracy of the learned 
author's opinion, let us change the correlative terms, and say, 
" I will consider those censures only, which concern my 
friend." In this sentence it will not be questioned that those 
and censures are in the objective case, under the government 
of the verb. And can it be doubted, if we say, " I will con- 
sider such censures," that censures with its concordant ad- 
jective are in the same case ? It is impossible, I conceive, 
to make this plainer; but we shall suppose, for the sake of 
illustration, if this should yet be deemed necessary, the ex- 
ample in question to be thus rendered in Latin, eas tantum 
reprehensiones perpendam, quae ad amicum meum, attinent. 
Now, what should we think of his classical attainments who 
should contend that eas or reprehensiones is the nominative 
to the verb ? If we revert, then, to the original terms, and say, 
" I will consider such of his censures as concern my friend," 
by what rule of grammar, by what principle of analysis, can 
we suppose such to be the nominative to the verb ? For let 
me ask, what is he to consider? Is it not such censures ? 
And are we, contrary to every principle of English grammar, 
to represent the object or subject after an active verb, as in 
the nominative case ? The absurdity is too monstrous for a 
moment's consideration. The very argument, therefore, by 
which the author defends his doctrine is founded in error, 
and involves an absurdity. Murray, as usual, adopts the 
opinion of Campbell. 

If it should be inquired how as b an adverb or a conjunctive 
particle, can be the nominative to a verb, it may be answered, 
that to whatever order of words we reduce this term, it was 
evidently at first what we denominate a pronoun ; and that 
it still so far retains its primitive character as to supply the 
place of a nominative. It is of little moment by what desig- 
nation it be called, if its character and real import are well 
understood, any more than it can be of consequence whether 
we call that a conjunction or a pronoun, provided we know, 
that it is truly and essentially the same word in the same 
meaning wherever it occurs. I would observe, also, though 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS, 279 

my limits will not permit me to illustrate the principle, that 
those, who disapprove the verb singular in the examples in 
question, may notwithstanding admit it in such expressions 
as so far as, so long as, and all similar phraseologies. 

" To illustrate, and often to correct him, I have meditated 
Tacitus, examined Suetonius, and consulted the following 
moderns." — Gibbon. To meditate, when a regimen is as- 
signed to it, as here, means to plot, to contrive, as, "he me- 
ditated designs against the state." When it signifies to 
ponder, or to reflect seriously, it should be followed by the 
preposition on, as, " he meditates on the law of God day and 
night." 

IMPROPRIETY. 

" They form a procession to proceed the palanquin of the 
ambassador." — Andersons Embassy to China. Here the verb 
to proceed, or go forward, is improperly used for to precede, 
or to go before. 

" He waved the subject of his greatness." — Dry den. "To 
wave " is properly " to move loosely," and should be dis- 
tinguished from "to waive," i.e. "to leave" or "to turn 
from." — See Skinner s Etym. 

" It lays on the table ; it laid on the table." This error is 
very common, and should be carefully avoided. The verb 
to lay is an active verb ; to lie is a neuter verb. When the 
subject of discourse is active, the former is to be used ; when 
the subject is neither active nor passive, the latter ought to 
be employed. Thus, " he lays down the book," " he laid 
down the book," where the nominative expresses an agent, or 
a person acting. " The book lies there," " the book lay 
there," where the nominative expresses something, neither 
active, nor passive. When we hear such expressions as 
these, " he lays in bed," " he laid in bed," a question naturally 
occurs, what does he lay ? what did he lay ? This question 
demonstrates the impropriety of the expressions. The error 
has originated, partly in an affected delicacy, rejecting the 
verb "to lie," as being synonymous with the verb "to tell a 
falsehood wilfully," and partly from the identity of the one 
verb in the present with the other in the preterite sense ; 
thus, " Jay," " laid," "laid;" "lie," "lay," "lain." 



280 CRITICAL REMARKS 

" The child was overlain." The participle, for the reason 
now given, should be overlaid. 

" It has been my brother you saw in the theatre, and not 
my cousin." This use of the preterite definite is, I believe, 
confined to Scotland, where, in colloquial language, it is very 
common. The Scots employ it in those cases, in which an 
Englishman uses either the preterite indefinite, or the verb 
signifying necessity. Thus, in the preceding instance, an 
Englishman would say, " it must have been my brother, you 
saw in the theatre." 

" Without having attended to this, we will be at a loss in 
understanding several passages in the classics." — Blair s 
Lectures. " In the Latin language, there are no two words 
we would more readily take to be synonymous, than amare 
and diligere^ — lb. This error occurs frequently in Blair. 
In the former example it should be shall, and in the latter 
should. (See p. 98.) 

An error, the reverse of this, occurs in the following 
passage. " There is not a girl in town, but let her have her 
will, in going to a mask, and she shall dress like a shep- 
herdess." — Spectator, No. 9. It should be, she will. The 
author intended to signify mere futurity ; instead of which he 
has expressed a command. 

" He rose the price of bread last week." Here rose, the 
preterite of the neuter verb to rise, and, therefore, unsuscep- 
tible of a regimen, is ungrammatically joined with an objec- 
tive case, instead of raised, the preterite of the active verb 
to raise. This error, therefore, involves a solecism, as well 
as an impropriety. 

" Does the price of bread raise this week ?" This error is 
the converse of the former, the active verb being here used 
instead of the neuter. The question, What does it raise ? 
shows the impropriety of the expression. It ought to be, 
"Does the price of bread rise this week?" These verbs, 
like the verb to lay and to lie, are very often confounded in 
vulgar use. 

" It would be injurious to the character of Prince Maurice, 
to suppose, that he would demean himself so far, as to be 
concerned in those anonymous pamphlets." — Watson's Philip 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 281 

277. Here the verb to demean, which signifies " to behave," 
is used as equivalent to the verb to debase, or " to degrade." 
This impropriety is now, I believe, almost entirely confined 
to Scotland ; it has, therefore, been ranked in the number of 
Scotticisms. " I demean myself" is equivalent to " I behave 
myself;" and in this sense the author last quoted has, in 
another passage, very properly used it. " Such of the 
Morescoes might remain, who, for any considerable time, de- 
meaned themselves as Christians." — Ibid. 

" Considerable arrears being now resting to the soldiers." — 
Ibid. " Resting," which is equivalent to " being quiet," or 
" remaining," is, in the sense in which it is here employed, a 
rank Scotticism : it should be, " due," or " owing." 

" The reason will be accounted for hereafter." — Warburton. 
Accounted for is here improperly used for assigned. " To 
account for a reason," is " to account for an account." 

" But no evidence is admitted in the house of lords, this 
being a distinct jurisdiction, which differs it considerably 
from these instances." — Blackstone. The verb to differ is a 
neuter verb, and cannot admit a regimen. The author has 
improperly used it in an active sense, for "to make to differ." 
It should be, "by which it differs," or "which makes it 
differ considerably from these instances." a 

a The error here involved suggests a few observations, which it may 
be useful to offer, concerning the distinctive character of active and neuter 
verbs. A neuter verb has been defined to be that, which denotes neither 
doing nor suffering. An active verb, as its name imports, denotes, that 
the subject is doing something. Johnson, however, in his Dictionary, 
gives every active verb the designation of neuter, unless followed by an 
objective case, that is, unless the object or subject of the action be ex- 
pressed. In the following instances, for example, he considers the verbs 
as neuter. " 'T is sure, that Henry reads ;" " so Idrank; and she made 
the camels drhik also; " " if you 'plant where savages are;" " the priests 
teach for hire;" "nor feel him where he struck;" "they that sow in 
tears, shall reap in joy." These are a few out of numberless examples, 
which might be produced. Indeed, Johnson's idea seems to be, as has 
been just now observed, that the verb must be regarded as neuter, unless 
followed by an objective case. This is certainly a great inaccuracy, and 
tends to introduce perplexity and confusion. The verb surely does not 
the less denote action, because it expresses it absolutely, or because the 
subject acted upon is not particularly specified. In the examples now 



282 CRITICAL REMARKS 

66 In order to have this project reduced to practice, there 
seems to want nothing more, than to put those in mind," &c. 
— Swift. Here, " to want," that is, " to need," " to require," 
is improperly used for " to be wanting," " to be required," 
" to be wanted." It should be, " there seems to be nothing 
wanting." The verb to want was frequently employed by 
Pope and Swift in the sense in which we here find it. John- 
son, likewise, in one or two passages, has adopted the same 
usage, thus, "there had never wanted writers to talk occasion- 
ally of Arcadia and Strephon." — Life of Phillips. But in 
this sense it may now be deemed obsolescent, if not entirely 
obsolete. 

The reader will here permit me to observe, that there is 
an idiom in our language, respecting the use of active for 
passive verbs, which seems worthy of attention, and which 
I do not recollect to have seen remarked by any of our gram- 
quoted, can it be questioned, when we say he struck, that he was active; 
or when we say, they that sow shall reap, will it be affirmed that they are 
not active? This would be to confound distinctions not merely ac- 
knowledged in theory, and adopted in definition, but also founded in the 
very nature of things. This matter, I conceive, may be shortly ex- 
plained, and very easily understood. It is admitted by every grammarian, 
that an active verb denotes, that the subject is acting, and that a neuter 
verb signifies that the subject is neither doing nor suffering. Now, of 
active verbs there are two kinds, transitive and intransitive. The latter 
is that which denotes immanent action, or that which does not pass from 
the agent to anything else, as, I walk, I ran. Transitive verbs are such 
as denote that the action passes from the agent to something acted upon, 
as, " Hector wounded him," " Cain slew his brother." But the subject 
to which the energy passes, may not always be expressed; the verb, 
however, is not the less active. Whether we say, " the drummer beats 
his drum," or " the drummer beats every day," it surely will not be con- 
tended, that there is less of action implied in the one case than in the 
other. The reader, then, is requested to observe, that it is not necessary 
to the active transitive verb, that the subject acted upon should be ex- 
pressed. The active verb may predicate of its subject merely the action 
generally and absolutely, as, " he reads in the morning, and writes in the 
evening;" or with the action may be expressed the subject or object, as, 
" he reads Homer in the morning, and writes letters in the evening ;" or 
the object or subject may be implied, and not expressed, as, " the 
drummer beats at night," namely, his drum. But in all these cases the 
verb is equally active. 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 283 

marians. In the languages of antiquity, the distinction be- 
tween active and passive was strictly observed ; but in Eng- 
lish the active is frequently employed for the passive voice. 
Of this remarkable idiom numberless examples might be pro- 
duced; but the few following will suffice. Thus we say, 
"the sentence reads ill," " the wine drinks harsh," "the grass 
cuts easily," "the apples eat hard," "the drum beats to arms," 
" the metal works well." In these examples, the subject 
clearly is acted upon ; the verb, therefore, must be considered 
as having a passive signification. It is almost unnecessary 
to observe, that this phraseology should be avoided, when- 
ever it is likely to create ambiguity. 

" Lead me forth in thy truth, and learn me." — Book of 
Common Prayer, Psal. xxv. The verb to learn formerly de- 
noted, either " to teach," or " to acquire knowledge." In the 
former sense it is now obsolete. It should therefore be, 
"lead me forth in thy truth, and teach me." 

"Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings by thy most 
gracious favour." — Book of Common Prayer. " He had pre- 
vented the hour, because we might have the whole day before 
us." — Bacon. The verb to prevent, as signifying "to go be- 
fore," or " come before," is now obsolete. 

" There was no longer any doubt, that the king was de- 
termined to wreck his resentment on all concerned." — JVat- 
so?is Philip II. 

"They not only wrecked their vengeance on the living, 
but on the ashes of the dead heretics." — Henry 's Britain. 

Here the verb to wreck, or " to destroy, by dashing on 
rocks," is improperly used for "to wreak," or "to discharge." 
In the last example the adverbs not only are improperly 
placed. It should be, " they wreaked their vengeance not 
only," &c. 

" We outrun our present income, not doubting to disburse 
ourselves out of the profits of some future plan." — Addison. 
" To disburse," or "to expend money," is here improperly 
used for " to reimburse," or " to repay." 

" And wrought a great miracle conform to that of the 
apostles." — Bacon. 

" The last is the most simple, and the most perfect, as 



284 CRITICAL REMARKS 

being conform to the nature of knowledge." — Hultoris In- 
vestigation, vol. i. p. 643. Conform, here used for conform- 
able, is, in this sense, deemed a Scotticism. 



SECTION V. 

THE ADVERB. 

BARBARISM. 

" Friendship, a rare thing in princes, more rare between 
princes, that so holily was observed to the last, of those two 
excellent men." — Sidney on Government. Holily is obso- 
lete. 

" Enquire, what be the stones, that do easiliest melt." — 
Bacon. The adverb easily is not compared, — see p. 70. 
Easiliest is, therefore, a barbarism. 

" Their wonder, that any man so near Jerusalem should be 
a stranger to what had passed there, their 'acknowledgment 
to one they met accidently, that they believed in this pro- 
phet," &c. — Guardian. Steele has here used accidently, fox 
accidentally. The former is a barbarism, and its derivation 
is repugnant to analogy. 

"Uneath may she endure the flinty street, 
To tread them with her tender feeling feet." — Shalcspcare. 

Uneath is now obsolete, and may therefore be deemed a bar- 
barism. 

" In northern clime, a val'rous knight 

Did whilom kill his bear in fight, 

And wound a fiddler." — Hudibras. 

Whilom is now entirely disused. The adverbs whilere, erst, 
and perhaps also anon, may be ranked in the class of bar- 
barisms. 

" And this attention gives ease to the person, because the 
clothes appear unstudily graceful." — Wollstonecraft' s Ori- 
ginal Stories. The word unstudily is barbarous, and its 
mode of derivation contrary to analogy. 

SOLECISM. 

" Use a little wine for thy stomach's sake, and thine often 
infirmities." Often, an adverb, is here improperly used as 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 285 

an adjective, in accordance with the substantive " infirmities." 
It ought to be " thy frequent infirmities." 

" We may cast in such seeds and principles, as we judge 
most likely to take soonest and deepest root." Here, as in 
the preceding example, the adverb "soonest" is used as an 
adjective ; for the connexion is, " soonest root," and "deepest 
root." Now, we cannot say " soon root," the former term 
being incapable of qualifying the latter ; nor can we, there- 
fore, say, " soonest root." It ought to be, " the earliest and 
the deepest root." 

"After these wars, of which they hope for a soon and 
prosperous issue." Soon issue is another example of the 
same error. 

" His lordship inveighed, with severity, against the con- 
duct of the then ministry." Here then, the adverb equivalent 
to at that time, is solecistically employed as an adjective, 
agreeing with ministry. This error seems to gain ground ; 
it should therefore be vigilantly opposed, and carefully 
avoided. " The ministry of that time," would be correct. 

" He tells them, that the time should come, that the temple 
should be graced with the presence of the Messias." Here 
that is incorrectly used for when, i. e. " at which time the 
temple should be graced." 

IMPROPRIETY. 

" By letters, dated the third of May, we learn that the 
West India fleet arrived safely." Here safely is improperly 
used for safe. The adverb is equivalent to " in a safe man- 
ner;" and when it is said, " that the fleet arrived safely? it 
signifies that the manner of the arrival, rather than the fleet 
itself, was safe or free from accident. If I say, " he carried 
the parcel as safely as possible," it implies merely his great 
attention to the manner of carrying it ; but this does not in- 
fallibly exclude accident ; for I may add, " but he unluckily 
fell," or, " he was unfortunately thrown down, and the glass 
was broken." But if I say, " he carried it as safe as possible," 
or, " he carried it safe," it implies that it came safe, or escaped 
all accidents. We should, therefore, say " that the W^est 
India fleet arrived safe." In disapproving the expression, 
"he arrived safely? I concur with Baker; but the judicious 
reader will perceive, that my reason for reprehending it, does 



286 CRITICAL REMARKS 

not entirely coincide with his. The author's words are these : 
" If a man says, that he arrived safely, or in a safe manner, 
he seems to suppose, that there is danger of some mischance 
in arriving. But what danger is there to be apprehended in 
the circumstance of arriving ? The danger is only during the 
journey, or voyage ; in the arrival there is none at all. The 
proper way of speaking is, therefore, ' I arrived safe,' that is, 
' having escaped all the dangers of the passage.' " 

"The poor woman carried them to the person to whom 
they were directed ; and when Lady Cathcart recovered her 
liberty, she received her diamonds safely." It should be, 
" she received her diamonds safe." 

Errors like the one on which I have now animadverted, 
frequently arise from a desire to avoid the opposite mistake ; 
I mean the improper use of the adjective for the adverb. — 
See Syntax, Rule V. Note 16. Hence many, when they em- 
ploy such phraseologies as I have here exemplified, conceive 
that they express themselves with the strictest accuracy, thus 
verifying the poet's observation, 

" In vitium ducit culpae fuga, si caret arte." 

In order to avoid this error, it should be remembered, that 
many English verbs, while they affirm some action, passion, 
or state of the subject, frequently serve as a copula, connect- 
ing the subject with another predicate. This is one of those 
idioms, in the grammar of our language, which demand the 
particular attention of the classical scholar. For, though an 
acquaintance with the learned languages will not seduce him 
into an improper use of an adjective for the adverb, it may, 
as in the example now before us, betray him into the converse 
error. And I am inclined to think, that from a propensity 
almost irresistible in the classical scholar to assimilate our 
language with the Latin tongue, our lexicographers have de- 
signated many of our words as adverbs, which are strictly ad- 
jectives. When it is said, for example, "it goes hard," John- 
son considers hard as an adverb. Yet when we say, " it goes 
contrary," he considers contrary as an adjective. There ap- 
pears to me to be more of caprice than of reason, more of 
prejudice than of truth, in this classification. Both words, I 
am persuaded, belong to one and the same species. Nay, I 
might venture to assert, that no person, who had studied the 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 287 

principles of the English language, and of that only, would 
pronounce the one to be an adverb, and the other an adjec- 
tive. It is to be observed, likewise, that we have the regular 
adverb hardly to express the manner. When we say, "he 
reasoned concerning the rule," " we argued respecting the 
fact," " he lives according to nature," is there not something 
extremely arbitrary and unphilosophical, in calling concerning 
a preposition, according a preposition, followed by to, but 
properly a participle, and respecting a participle ? Are not all 
the three participles ? Yet Johnson has classed them, as I 
have now mentioned. But the farther illustration of this sub- 
ject would lead us into a field much too large for the limits of 
the present treatise. We must therefore revert to our primary 
observation, in which we cautioned the reader against the im- 
proper use of the adjective for the adverb. It should be re- 
membered that, when it is intended to predicate something 
of the subject, beside the attribute of the verb, the adjective 
should be employed; but, when it is intended to express 
merely some modification of the attribute of the verb, we 
should then use the adverb. The difference may be illus- 
trated by the following examples. When Gustavus says to 
his troops, " your limbs tread vigorous and your breasts beat 
high," he predicates with the act of treading their physical 
strength ; but had he said, " your limbs tread vigorously," it 
would merely modify their treading, and express an act, not 
a constitutional habit. The same distinction may be made 
between saying with Arnoldus in the same play, " the tear 
rolls graceful down his visage," and " the tear rolls grace, 
fully." The former predicates grace of the tear itself, the 
latter merely of its rolling. When we say, " he looks sly," 
we mean he has the look or the appearance of being a sly 
man ; when it is said, " he looks slyly," we signify that he 
assumes a sly look. When we say, " it tastes good," we 
affirm that the subject is of a good quality, whether the taste 
be pleasant or unpleasant ; if we say, " it tastes well," we 
affirm the taste of it to be pleasant. 

" The manner of it is thus." The adverb thus means " in 
this manner." The expression, therefore, amounts to " the 
manner of it is in this manner." It should be, " the manner 



288 CRITICAL REMARKS 

of it is this," or, " this is the manner of it." " This much is 
certain." Better, "thus much," or " so much." 

" It is a long time since I have been devoted to your in- 
terest." Since properly means " from the time when," and 
not " during which time." The expression might be con- 
strued into a meaning the reverse of that which is intended, 
implying, that the attachment had ceased for along time. It 
should be, " it is a long time since I became devoted," or, " it 
is a long time, that I have been devoted to your interest." 

" It is equally the same." Equally is here redundant; it 
ought to be, " it is the same." 

" Whenever I call on him, he always inquires for you." 
Whenever means " at what time soever," " always when," 
or "as often as;" always, therefore, is redundant. 

" They will not listen to the voice of the charmer, charm 
he never so wisely." Never is here improperly used for ever. 
It ought to be, " charm he ever so wisely ;" that is, " however 
icisely" or " how wisely soever, he may charm." 

" And even in those characteristic al portraits, on which he 
has lavished all the decorations of his style, he is seldom or 
ever misled." — Stewarfs Life of Robertson. This error is 
the converse of the former. It ought to be, " seldom or 
never ;" that is, " seldom, or at no time." " Seldom or ever" 
is equivalent to " seldom or always," or to " seldom or at any 
time;" expressions evidently improper. 

" Whether thou be my son or not." — Bible. " Whether 
you will keep his commandments, or no." Both these phrase- 
ologies are in use ; but I am inclined to agree with those 
grammarians, who prefer the former, as more consistent with 
the ellipsis — " Whether thou be, or be not." " W T hether you 
will keep his commandments, or will not keep." 

" Some years after being released from prison, by reason 
of his consummate knowledge of civil law, and military 
affairs, he was soon exalted to the supreme power." The first 
clause of this sentence is ambiguous ; for the sentence may 
imply, either that he gained the supremacy, some years after 
he was released from prison, that period being left indeter- 
minate ; or that some years after a time previously mentioned, 
he was released from prison, and attained the chief power. 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 289 

The latter being the author's meaning, it ought to be, 
" some years afterwards being released from prison." An- 
other ambiguity is here involved by improper arrangement ; 
for, as the sentence stands, it is somewhat doubtful, whether 
his consummate knowledge was the cause of his releasement, 
or the cause of his elevation. This error, however, belongs 
more to the rhetorician, than the grammarian. The French 
term this ambiguity, " construction louche," or a squinting 
construction. 

The following error consists in wrong collocation : " The 
Celtiberi in Spain borrowed that name from the Celtae and 
Iberi, from whom they were jointly descended." Jointly, 
with whom ? It should be, " from whom (the Celtae and 
Iberi) jointly they were descended." 

" And the Quakers seem to approach nearly the only re- 
gular body of Deists in the universe, the literati, or the dis- 
ciples of Confucius in China." — Humes Essays. The adverb 
nearly, which is synonymous with almost, is here improperly 
used for near 71 . It should be, approach near. 

" This is the Leviathan, from whence the terrible wits of 
our age are said to borrow their weapons." — Swift. From 
is here redundant; whence, denoting "from which place." 

" An ancient author prophecies from hence." — Dryderi. 
Here a similar impropriety is involved. It should be, hence. 

" E'er we can offer our complaints, 
Behold him present with his aid." 

E Vr, a contraction for ever, which is synonymous with always, 
and also at any time, is here improperly used for ere or before. 

In the two following passages, there appears to me to be 
a similar error : " Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the 
golden bowl be broken." — Bible. " I was set up from ever- 
lasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was." — Ibid. 

" And, as there is now never a woman in England, I hope, 
I may talk of women without offence." — Steele. 

" He spake never a word." — Bible. 

a In justice to this respectable sect, it is incumbent on me to observe, 
that the Quakers are not Deists, nor does their religious creed approach 
to Deism. 

U 



290 CRITICAL REMARKS 

This usage of the word "never," is now, I believe, entirely 
confined to the vulgar. 

" As for conflagrations and great droughts, they do not 
merely dispeople and destroy." — Bacon. Merely is here used, 
as it is uniformly by Bacon, and very frequently by Shak- 
speare, for entirely. In this sense, it is obsolete ; and it now 
signifies purely, simply, only, nothing more than. From in- 
attention to this, the passage, now quoted, has been corrupted 
in several editions. They have it, " do not merely dispeople, 
but destroy," conveying a sentiment very different from what 
the author intended. 



SECTION VI. 

THE PREPOSITION. 



SOLECISM. 



"Who do you speak to?" Here the preposition is joined 
with the nominative, instead of the objective case. It should 
be, "whom do you speak to ?" or " to whom do you speak ?" 
To who is a solecism. 

" He talked to you and I, of this matter, some days ago." 
It should be, " to you and me ; " that is, to you and to me." 
" Now Margaret's curse is fallen upon our heads, 
When she exclaim'd on Hastings you and I." 

Shakspeare. 

It ought to be, " on Hastings you and me? the pronouns 
being under the government of the preposition understood. 

" Neither do I think, that anything could be more enter- 
taining, than the story of it exactly told, with such observa- 
tions, and in such a spirit, style, and manner, as you alone 
are capable of performing it." This sentence is extremely 
faulty. " To perform a story " is not English ; and the rela- 
tive clause is ungrammatical, the preposition being omitted. 
It should be, " performing it in," which would be gramma- 
tically correct, but inelegant, as well as improper. It would 
be better expressed thus, " in that spirit, style, and manner, 
in which you alone are capable of narrating it." 

" Notwithstanding of the numerous panegyrics on the an- 
cient English liberty." — Hume's Essays. The error here in 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 291 

the use of the preposition after notwithstanding, is, I believe, 
peculiar to Scotland. Notwithstanding is a compound word 
of the same import as not preventing . The grammatical con- 
struction therefore is, "the numerous panegyrics notwith- 
standing," that is, " not hindering," the noun and the parti- 
ciple being in the absolute case. Of renders the expression 
solecistical. 

IMPROPRIETY. 

" If policy can prevail upon force." — Addison. Here upon 
is improperly used for over. To prevail on, is " to per- 
suade ; " to prevail over, is " to overcome." 

" I have set down the names of several gentlemen, who 
have been robbed in Dublin streets, for these three years 
past." — Swift. It should be, "within these three years past." 
Swift's expression implies, as Baker observes, that these gen- 
tlemen had been robbed during the whole three years. 

" Ye blind guides, who strain at a gnat, and swallow a 
camel." In this sentence, the preposition at is very impro- 
perly used for out. It should be, " strain out a gnat;" that 
is, exclude it from the liquor by straining. 

" Oliver Proudfute, a freeman and burgess, was slain upon 
the streets of the city." — Scott. This form of expression is 
almost universal in Scotland. An Englishman says, "in the 
streets." 

" I have several times inquired of you without any satis- 
faction." — Pope. We say, "inquire of," when we ask a 
question ; and " inquire for," or " after," when we desire to 
know the circumstances, in which any object is placed. He 
should have employed the latter expression. 

" The greatest masters of critical learning differ among one 
another." — Spectator. If the ellipsis be supplied, the sen- 
tence proceeds thus : " The greatest masters of critical learn- 
ing differ, one differs among another." Here the preposition 
among, which implies a number, or a plurality, is joined to 
a term significant of unity. It ought to be, " from one an- 
other ;" that is " one from another," or " differ among them- 
selves." 

" I intended to wait of you this morning." The preposi- 

u 2 



292 CRITICAL REMARKS 

tion of is here improperly used for on. We say, to wait on, 
not to iv ait of. 

" He knows nothing on it." This is a vile vulgarism for 
"he knows nothing of it." 

" He is now much altered to the better." To is here im- 
properly used instead of for. "Altered to the better," may, 
I believe, be deemed a Scotticism. It ought to be, " he is 
altered for the better." 

Ambiguity is sometimes produced by putting the preposi- 
tion in an improper place. " A clergyman is, by the militia 
act, exempted from both serving and contributing." This, 
though intended to express a different meaning, strictly im- 
plies, that he is not obliged both to serve and to contribute, 
but does not exclude his liability to do the one, or the 
other. If we say, " he is exempted both from serving and 
contributing," we express an exemption from both. 

" Such of my readers, as have a taste of fine writing." — 
Addison' 's Sped. " To have a taste of a thing," is " to feel 
how it affects the sensitive or perceptive faculty;" " to have 
a taste for a thing," is " to relish its agreeable qualities ; " 
" to have a taste in a thing," which is the expression used by 
Addison in the same paper, is "to have a discriminative 
judgment in examining the object." The first expression is 
incorrect, as not conveying his meaning. 

Swift, speaking of Marlborough's dismission from the 
queen's ministry, as a bad requital of his public services, 
says, " If a stranger should hear these furious outcries of 
ingratitude against our general, he would be apt to inquire," 
&c. One would naturally conclude from the author's ex- 
pression, that Marlborough, and not the nation, was charged 
with ingratitude. He should have said, " ingratitude towards 
our general." 

" I received the sword in a present from my brother." 
This is a very common colloquial Scotticism, and occurs 
occasionally in written language. The sword was not re- 
ceived in, but as a present. 

In the use of prepositions, a distinction is properly made 
between their literal and figurative meaning. " Wit," says 
Shakspeare, " depends on dilatory time." Here the verb is 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 293 

employed figuratively, and the idea involved in the primitive 
meaning is dismissed. 

" From gilded roofs depending lamps display." — Dryden. 

Here the verb is used in its literal acceptation, denoting " to 
hang," and is followed, therefore, by from. 

To the same purpose it has been remarked by Campbell, 
that the verb " to found," used literally, is followed by on 
preferably to in, as, " the house was founded on a rock;" 
but, when employed metaphorically, is better followed by in, 
as, " dominion is founded in grace." 

" There is no need for your assistance." It should be, 
" of your assistance." We say, " occasion for" and "need 
of" Need for may likewise be pronounced a Scotticism, 
as, I believe, this phraseology is seldom or never used by 
English writers. 

" For, what chiefly deters the sons of science and philo- 
sophy from reading the Bible, and profiting of that lecture, 
but the stumbling-block of absolute inspiration?" — Geddes. 
"To profit of" is a Gallicism; it should be, "profiting by." 



SECTION VII. 

THE CONJUNCTION. 

SOLECISM. 

" A system of theology, involving such absurdities, can be 
maintained, I think, by no rational man, much less by so 
learned a man as him." Conjunctions having no govern- 
ment, the word as ought not to be joined with an objective 
case. It should be, " so learned a man as he" the verb is 
being understood. 

" Tell the cardinal, that I understand poetry better than 
him." — Smollett. According to the grammatical construction 
of the latter clause, it means, " I understand poetry better 
than I understand him." This, however, is not the sentiment 
which the writer intended to convey. The clause should 
proceed thus, " I understand poetry better than he ;" that is, 



294 CRITICAL REMARKS 

" than he understands it." Those who contend for the use 
of than as a preposition, and justify the phraseology which 
is here censured, must at least admit, that to construe than 
as a preposition, creates ambiguity. Thus, when it is said, 
" you think him handsomer than me" it would be impossible 
to determine whether the meaning is, " you think him hand- 
somer than I think him," or " you think him handsomer than 
you think me." 

" There is nothing more pleases mankind, as to have others 
to admire and praise their performances, though they are 
never so trivial." Here there are two errors. The compara- 
tive more is followed by as, instead of than ; and the adverb 
never is improperly used for ever. " How trivial so ever." 
It should be, " There is nothing that pleases mankind more, 
than," &c. 

Conjunctions having no government, the scholar, desirous 
to avoid error, should carefully observe, whether the predicate 
be applicable to the two subjects, connected by the conjunc- 
tion, or, to speak more generally, whether the two nouns be 
dependent on the same verb or preposition, expressed or 
understood. " The lover got a woman of greater fortune 
than her he had missed." — Addison, Guardian. This sen- 
tence, if not acknowledged to be ungrammatical, is at least 
inelegant. The pronoun should have been introduced. If 
than be considered as having the power of a preposition, the 
charge of solecism is precluded ; but if than be a conjunc- 
tion, he should have said, " than she, whom he had missed." 
For, as Lowth observes, there is no ellipsis of the verb got, 
so that the pronoun her cannot be under its government. 
The meaning is not, " The lover got a woman of greater 
fortune, than he got her, whom he missed," for this would be 
a contradiction, but, " of greater fortune, than she was." In 
like manner, in the following passage : 

" Nor hope to be myself less miserable, 
By what I seek, but others to make 
Such as 7." — Milton. 

Bentley says, that it should be me. We concur with Dr. 
Lowth in rejecting this correction, and approving the ex- 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 295 

pression of Milton. There is no ellipsis of the verb make; 
others and I are not under the government of the same word. 
The meaning is not, " to make others such, as to make me," 
but, " such as I am" the substantive verb being understood. 

In the following passage, on the contrary, the ellipsis seems 
evident : " I found none so fit as him to be set in opposition 
to the father of the renowned city of Rome." It has been 
contended, that the author should have said, " as he," and 
not " as him : " but it appears to me, that the verb found is 
understood in the secondary clause, and that the expression 
is correct, the sense being, " I found none so fit, as I found 
him." 

In the following passage the two subjects belong to the 
same verb: 

" The sun, upon the calmest sea, 
Appears not half so bright as thee." — Prior. 

It ought to be, " as thou ;" that is, " as thou appearest." 

" So as," and " as, as," though frequently, have not always 
the same import. "These things," said Thales to Solon, 
who was lamenting the supposed death of his son, "which 
strike down so firm a man as you, have deterred me from 
marriage." The expression clearly refers to Solon ; but, if 
he had said " as firm a man as you," it might have referred 
to a different person from Solon, but a man of equal fortitude. 

" For ever in this humble cell, 
Let thee and I, my fair one, dwell." 

The second line of the couplet is ungrammatical, the con- 
junction connecting an objective with a nominative case, or, 
to speak more correctly, the pronoun of the first person, 
which should be a regimen to the verb understood, being 
here in the nominative case. Thus, " let thee," and, " let I, 
my fair one, dwell," instead of " let thee, and let me" 

" Let us make a covenant, I and thou." — Bible. The 
error here, though similar, does not come under precisely the 
same predicament with the former. The pronoun us is very 
properly in the objective case, after the verb let ; I and thou 
should therefore be in the same case, according to Rule vii. 
of Syntax. The expression is in fact elliptical, and when 



296 CRITICAL REMARKS 

completed proceeds thus, " Let us make a covenant : let me 
and thee make." 

" Though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the 
things which he suffered." The first clause is intended to 
express a fact, not a hypothesis ; the verb, therefore, should 
be in the indicative mood. Conjunctions have no govern- 
ment, either of cases or moods. 

IMPROPRIETY. 

" If in case he come, all will be well." If and in case are 
synonymous, the one meaning " suppose," and the other, 
" on the supposition." One of them, therefore, is redundant. 

" The reason of my desiring to see you was, because I 
wanted to talk with you." Because means " by reason;" the 
expression, therefore, is chargeable with redundancy. It 
should be, " that I wanted to talk with you." 

" No sooner was the cry of the infant heard, but the old 
gentleman rushed into the room." — Martinus Scrib. The 
comparative is here improperly followed by but, instead of 
than. 

" Scarce had the Spirit of Laws made its appearance, than 
it was attacked." Than is employed after comparatives only, 
and the word other \ It ought to be " scarce," or, for reasons 
formerly given, " scarcely had the Spirit of Laws made its 
appearance, when it was attacked," or " no sooner— than." 

" The resolution was not the less fixed, that the secret was 
as yet communicated to very few, either in the French or 
English court." This passage from Hume I have not been 
able to find. Priestley observes, that it involves a Gallicism, 
the word that being used instead of as. If the meaning in- 
tended be, that some circumstances, previously mentioned,had 
not shaken the resolution, because the secret was as yet 
known to few, then Priestley's observation was correct, and 
the word as should be substituted for that, to express the 
cause of the firmness. But, if the author intended to say, 
that the very partial discovery of the secret had not shaken 
the resolution, the clause is then perfectly correct. Accord- 
ing to the former phraseology, the circumstance subjoined 
operated as a cause, preventing the resolution from being 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 297 

shaken : according to the latter, it had no effect, or produced 
no change of the previous determination. In other words, 
" the less fixed that," implies that the subject of the follow- 
ing clause did not affect that of the preceding; " the less 
fixed as " denotes, that the latter circumstance contributed 
to the production of the former. As it is obvious, that, in 
such examples, the definite article may refer either to the 
antecedent or the subsequent clause, the distinction, here 
specified, should, for the sake of perspicuity, be carefully 
observed a . 

" His donation was the more acceptable, that it was given 
without solicitation." That the word that is frequently used 
for because cannot be questioned ; thus, " I am glad that you 
have returned safe," that is, " because you have returned safe." 

" 'T is not that I love you less 

Than when before you feet I lay." — Waller. 

Here that is equivalent to because. English writers, how- 
ever, after a comparative, employ as or because, to denote 
that the circumstance subjoined was the cause of the pre- 
ceding one. The use of that in such examples is accounted 
a Scotticism ; it should, therefore, be, " his donation was 
the more acceptable, as" or " because it was given without 
solicitation." 

" His arguments on this occasion had, it may be presumed, 
the greater weight, that he had never himself entered within 
the walls of a playhouse." — Stewart's Life of Robertson. 

" A mortification, the more severe, that the joint authority 
of the archduke and the infanta governed the Austrian 
Netherlands." — Tliomsorfs Continuation of Watson's History. 

These sentences are chargeable with the same error ; and, 
it is not a little remarkable, though the impropriety has been 

a A similar ambiguity sometimes occurs in Latin by the indiscriminate 
use of quod. This may be prevented by employing quoniam when the 
succeeding member of the sentence expresses the cause of the preceding 
subject. Thus, " Nee consilium eo minus erat firmum, quoniam secretum 
cum perpaucis adhuc erat communicatum," where the eo refers. to a pre- 
ceding circumstance. " Nee consilium eo minus erat firmum, quod " 
where the eo refers to the subsequent clause. The former phraseology 
affirms, the latter denies, the influence of the circumstance subjoined. 



298 CRITICAL REMARKS 

pointed out again and again, that there is scarcely a Scotch 
writer, not even among those of the highest name, who is 
not chargeable with the frequent commission of this error. 

" On the east and west sides, it (America) is washed by the 
Atlantic and Pacific oceans." — Robertson. This mode of 
expression is incorrect ; and, though to the geographer in- 
telligible, it strictly conveys a conception not intended by the 
author. The copulative joins the two sides, which ought to 
be separated ; and combines the two seas, instead of the two 
facts, implying, that both sides are washed by the same two 
oceans. It should be rather, " On the east side it is washed 
by the Atlantic, and on the west (is washed) by the Pacific 
ocean." 

" Will it be believed, that the four Gospels are as old, or 
even older than tradition ? " — Bolinghroke. Here there is a 
faulty omission of the particle corresponding to as ; for the 
positive and comparative cannot be followed by the same 
conjunction. It ought to be, "as old as, or even older than 
tradition ;" or, perhaps, better, "as old as tradition, or even 
older." 

" The books were to have been sold as this day." This is 
a most offensive vulgarism. The conjunction as can have no 
regimen ; nor can it be properly used as equivalent to on. 
It ought to be, " sold this day," or " on this day." 

"It is supposed, that he must have arrived at" Paris as 
yesterday." This sentence is chargeable with the same error. 
Construed strictly, it is, " he must have arrived at Paris as, 
or in like manner as, he arrived yesterday." 

" The duke had not behaved with that loyalty, as he ought 
to have done." Propriety of correspondence here requires 
with that to be followed by with which, instead of as. The 
sentence, even thus corrected, would be still inelegant and 
clumsy, " The duke had not behaved with becoming 
loyalty," would be much better. 

" In the order as they lie in his preface." This involves a 
similar impropriety. It should be, " in order as," or " in the 
order, in which they lie in his preface." 

" No ; this is not always the case neither." — Beattie. 

" Men come not to the knowledge of ideas which are 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS, 299 

thought innate, till they come to the use of reason ; nor then 
neither." — Locke. 

In old English two negatives denied ; hence, perhaps, this 
phraseology originated. Johnson remarks, that the use of 
neither ; after a negative, and at the end of a sentence, though 
not grammatical, renders the expression more emphatic. 
Analogy, however, is decidedly in favour of the affirmative 
term ; I, therefore, prefer the word " either." Were John- 
son's argument admitted, such expressions as these, " I for- 
bade you not to go ; " "I won't suffer no such thing ; " " He 
would not have none of my assistance," might, I apprehend, 
be justified on the same principle. Those who employ them, 
doubtless, believe them to be more emphatic, than if they in- 
cluded a single negative. 

" This I am the rather disposed to do, that it will serve to 
illustrate the principles above laid down." — Campbell on 
Rhetoric. This sentence involves an error, on which I have 
already animadverted. " The rather " should be followed by 
as, not that. 

" This is another use, that in my opinion contributes rather 
to make a man learned than wise : and is neither capable of 
pleasing the understanding, or imagination." Lowth justly 
observes, that or is here improperly used for nor, the correla- 
tive words being neither, nor. In addition to this observa- 
tion, I remark, that the word neither is erroneously placed. 
To render this collocation of the conjunction correct, there 
should be another attributive opposed to the word "capable," 
as, " neither capable of pleasing the understanding, nor cal- 
culated to gratify the imagination." But, as the author in- 
tended to exclude two subjects, these should have been con- 
trasted by the exclusive conjunctions, thus, " is capable of 
pleasing neither the understanding, nor the imagination." 

A similar error occurs in the following sentence : " Ad- 
versity both taught you to think and reason "Steele. The 
conjunction, which is, in truth, the adjective both, is im- 
properly placed. It should be, " taught you both," i. e. the 
two things, " to think and reason." 

It has been already observed, that the conjunction or is 
used disjunctively, and subdisjunctively, sometimes denoting 



300 CRITICAL REMARKS 

a diversity of things, and sometimes merely a difference of 
names. Hence often arises ambiguity, where the utmost pre- 
cision of expression is necessary a . When lluddiman delivers 
it as a rule, that " verbal adjectives, or such as signify an af- 
fection of the mind, require the genitive," I have known the 
scholar at a loss to understand, whether there be two distinct 
classes of adjectives, here intended, or one class under two 
designations. The ambiguity might here be avoided, by using 
and or with instead of or. It may also be prevented in many 
cases, by more forcibly marking the distinction by the use of 
either. Thus, if we say, " whosoever shall cause, or occa- 
sion a disturbance," it may be doubtful, whether the latter of 
the two verbs be not designed as explanatory of the former, 
they, though their meanings be distinct, being often used as 
synonymous* terms. If we say, "shall either cause or occa- 
sion," all doubt is removed. Sometimes ambiguity may be 
precluded either by the insertion, or the omission, of the ar- 
ticle. Thus, if we say, " a peer, or lord of parliament," 11 
meaning to designate only one individual, or one order, 
the expression is correct. But if it be intended to signify 
two individuals, every peer not being a lord of parliament, 
and every lord of parliament not being a peer, we should 
say, " a peer, or a lord of parliament," or " either a peer, 
or lord of parliament." 

Having now endeavoured to explain and illustrate the ety- 
mology and syntax of the English language, I cannot dismiss 
the subject without earnestly recommending to the classical 
student to cultivate a critical acquaintance with his native 
tongue. It is an egregious, but common error, to imagine, 
that a perfect knowledge of Greek and Latin precludes the 
necessity of studying the principles of English grammar. 
The structure of the ancient, and that of modern languages, 
are very dissimilar. Nay, the peculiar idioms of any lan- 

a In our penal statutes, which should be precisely worded, because they 
are literally interpreted, much ambiguity frequently arises from the loose 
and incorrect manner in which this conjunction is used. 

b The issue of a question, respecting a contested election at Rochester 
in 1820, depended on the construction of this designation, " a peer, or 
lord of parliament." 



AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 301 

guage, how like soever in its general principles to any other, 
must be learned by study, and an attentive perusal of the best 
writers in that language. Nor can any imputation be more 
reproachful to the proficient in classical literature, than, with 
a critical knowledge of Greek and Latin, which are now dead 
languages, to be superficially acquainted with his native 
tongue, in which he must think, and speak, and write. 

The superiority of Greek and Latin over the English lan- 
guage in respect of harmony, graceful dignity, conciseness, 
and fluency, will be readily admitted. Our language is, com- 
paratively, harsh and abrupt. It possesses strength, indeed ; 
but unaccompanied with softness, with elegance, or with 
majesty. It must be granted also, that the Greek is, perhaps, 
a more copious, and is certainly a more ductile 3 and tractable 
language. But though, in these respects, the English be in- 
ferior to the languages of Greece and Rome, yet in precise- 
ness of expression, diversity of sound, facility of communi- 
cation, and variety of phrase, it may claim the pre-eminence. 
It would be easy to evince the truth of this assertion, did 
the limits, which I have prescribed to myself permit. The 
fact is, that analogous languages almost necessarily possess 
a superiority in these respects over those, which are trans- 
positive. 

It is to be remembered, also, that our language is suscepti- 
ble of high improvement ; and though its abrupt and rugged 
nature cannot be entirely changed, much may be done to 
smooth its asperities and soften its harshness. 

As a further inducement to the study of the English lan- 
guage, I would assure the young reader, that a due attention 
to accuracy of diction is highly conducive to correctness of 
thought. For, as it is generally true, that he, whose concep- 
tions are clear, and who is master of his subject, delivers his 

a The superior ductility of the Greek, above every other language, must 
appear from its singular aptitude to form new words by composition or 
derivation, so as immediately to communicate any new idea. Hence the 
names of most of our modern discoveries and inventions are of Greek 
extraction. Thus we have the terms "microscope," "telegraph," 
'•' panorama," " odometer," and many others. 



302 CRITICAL REMARKS AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 

sentiments with case and perspicuity a ; so it is equally cer- 
tain, that, as language is not only the vehicle of thought, but 
also an instrument of invention, if we desire to attain a habit 
of conceiving clearly and thinking correctly, wc must learn 
to speak and write with accuracy and precision. 

It must, at the same time, be remembered, that to give our 
chief attention to mere phraseology, or to be more solicitous 
about the accuracy of the diction than the value of the senti- 
ment, is a sure indication of a nerveless and vacant mind. 
As we estimate a man, not by his garb, but by his intellec- 
tual and moral worth, so it is the sentiment itself, not the 
dress in which it is exhibited, that determines its character, 
and our opinion of its author. 

" True expression, like th' unchanging sun, 
Clears and improves whate'er it shines upon ; 
It gilds all objects, but it alters none." — Pope. 

In short, the precept of Quintilian should be studiously 
observed : " curam ergo verborum, rerum volo esse solicitudi- 
nem." — Inst. Orat. lib. viii. 

" Cui lecta potenter erit res, 
Nee facundia deseret hunc, nee lucidus ordo. 

Verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur." 

Hor. de Art. Poet. 



THE END. 



G. Woodfall and Son, Printers, Angel Court, Skinner Street, London. 



5 % 6 r * 



- 










































































































































- % W\ 






^> V 






r^ 

























%4> 



-v 



\*" " 




"■'b 






..._ „__,., 



xO O, 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Oct. 2006 



% ' Treatment Date: Oct. 2006 

>.^° f PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

r* <X> | * ^X .C* * A 1 11 Thomson Park Drive 

o " ^> Cranber.v Township, PA 16066 









B 
























- 
























Kp_A- 






o 1 






r- <<■ 



c 




%> 









^ v* 












tf 






' # 





















<-> 






'++ 












Oo, 



































mm I 

1 

Ira 

1 

Hi 



El 






, k : ■ 



Ml 

■nil 



■ I Mi-'' 
MB 

■ 

m 

I 

Ml 

I 

■ 

1 



